90.9 WBUR - Boston's NPR news station
Top Stories:
PLEDGE NOW
Week In The News: IRS And AP, Military Sex Abuse, Angelina Jolie

IRS and AP scandals. White House damage control.  More military sex abuse.  Angelina Jolie.  Our weekly news roundtable goes behind the headlines.

Attorney General Eric Holder gestures as he testifies on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, May 15, 2013, before the House Judiciary Committee oversight hearing on the Justice Department. (AP)

Attorney General Eric Holder gestures as he testifies on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, May 15, 2013, before the House Judiciary Committee oversight hearing on the Justice Department. (AP)

Wall-to-wall scandal talk in Washington this week.  Fury over the IRS and Tea Party targets.  Fury over the Associated Press and its ransacked records.  And a suddenly embattled president scrambling to get on top of the uproar.

There was no help from the Pentagon, where more sex abuse issues have surfaced.  Pimping.  Not much help from the Benghazi e-mails.  A little help from the deficit, of all things.  It’s down!  We’ve got fierce Texas tornadoes.  And a bold Angelina Jolie.

This hour, On Point:  our weekly news roundtable goes behind the headlines.

- Tom Ashbrook

Guests

Susan Davis, chief congressional correspondent for USA Today. (@davisusan)

Josh Barro, columnist for Bloomberg view. Lead writer for the Ticker blog on economics, finance, and politics. (@jbarro)

Jack Beatty, On Point news analyst.

From Tom’s Reading List

CNN: Obama counter-punches in effort to regain political balance – “President Barack Obama is counter-punching furiously to prevent a series of potential scandals from overwhelming his second-term agenda. With a trio of moves, the suddenly beleaguered president fought back on Wednesday against Republican attacks that his administration defied accountability for controversies involving IRS targeting of conservative groups, the secret subpoena of journalists’ phone records and erroneous talking points in the immediate aftermath of last year’s Benghazi terrorist attack.”

NBC News: Senator seeks to reform military’s ‘unacceptable’ sex abuse policies — “A New York senator introduced a bill Thursday that aims to remove sex crimes from the military’s chain of command — a bid to transform an insulated culture that tends to dampen sex-assault reporting, leaving many victims feeling helpless or hopeless. Under the Pentagon’s current justice system, less than 1 percent of accused sexual perpetrators in the military were convicted last year while during 2012 just 9.8 percent of sex-assault victims reported the incidents, according to a Department of Defense report. Many victims feel powerless because their superiors can control everything from whether a case proceeds to whether a guilty verdict is eventually overturned.”

Time: Three Lessons from the Benghazi Emails — “The 100 pages of emails about Benghazi released by the White House on Tuesday evening provide a fascinating glimpse at the machinations of national security officials working under stress. The exchanges, which hashed out a set of talking points intended for members of Congress to use a few days after the September 11, 2012, terrorist attack in Libya that killed four Americans, tell us virtually nothing new about the now well-excavated story. But they do underscore a few important points.”

Please follow our community rules when engaging in comment discussion on this site.
  • Wm_James_from_Missouri

    It is a quarter of 5 am, here in Missouri, and I am not seeing any comments. What’s up with that ?

  • Ed75

    The Kermit Gosnell trial is over: he accepted life without parole in exchange for not appealing his case. The media didn’t cover the case, but now they won’t have to cover the appeal. (During the jury selection process they removed all pro-life potential jurors.)

    Unfortunately the practices of Gosnell of killing born children, not to mention unborn children, in squalid conditions (the back-alley has just moved inside) is common around the country (see Live Action). We pray for his conversion. (Once a child is born he or she is an American citizen by the Constitution.)

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

      “The media didn’t cover the case”

      “During the jury selection process they removed all pro-life
      potential jurors”

      You make it hard for me to think charitably of people who call themselves Christians.

      Let’s hear it for those of us who aren’t praying for Gosnell, but for the women who find him to be the only resort because all the safe means of contraception and abortion have been made illegal, thanks to those like you who call yourselves “Christians”.

  • Ed75

    More states make same-sex marriage legal; another step in stem cells leads to more cloning and destruction of embryos; Vermont about to legalize euthanasia perhaps … reminds one of a funny verse from Revelation: ‘The wrath of the Lamb’.

    • Ray in VT

      You say that the Gosnell trial was not covered by the press, which is not quite true, but I was reading the other day that Fox News gave almost no coverage to the passage of same sex marriage in three more states.  Of course, the solution to gay marriage is that if you don’t want one, then don’t get one.

      What Gosnell did was horrible, and he belongs in jail, but it sure looks like some anti-choice groups are trying to use him to paint him as representative of abortion providers in general, and I’ve yet to see anything out of Live Action that looks credible.  They seem to engage in the sort of selective editing that they learned from James O’Keefe.

      • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

        In light of your initial observation you seem to advise people to seek out multiple sources for information.  But, with modern tools it is very easy to receive only information that confirms one’s biases, even from multiple sources.  What steps do you take to challenge your biases?

        • Ray in VT

          One can challenge one’s biases by seeking out reliable sources, and I think that it is good look at sources to which one is ideologically opposed, which I sometimes do, although I do try to stick to the reputable ones.  My boss is very fond of the American Conservative, although I haven’t looked at that one.

          I try to find sources that are as unbiased as possible or which are written by experts or are under the auspices of groups which have an established reputation for high quality work.  For instance, right now I am reading a book on Jefferson by an author whose previous work was well reviewed.  It is very interesting, and I think that it is quite good.  I am pretty unlikely to read David Barton’s Jefferson book, because his work stinks, and I just don’t have time for that sort of thing.  There are sources that I trust more than others, and there are some sources that I have pretty open contempt for, although it is not because of their outlook, just their track record.  I don’t like “bomb throwers”, whether I agree with them or not, and I have no patience for conspiracy theories or theorists.

          • Don_B1

            I find that when watching any news media, it helps to know their biases because everyone has one, but then look to see if they have guests on with opposing views, but the guests either don’t or are discouraged from using shallow talking points, and a more wide-ranging discussion of the issues almost always ensues.

            An example was the UP /wit Chris Hayes program that has moved from weekend mornings to weeknights at 8 p.m. with the title, “All In /with Chris Hayes.

            The change from a two hour weekend show to a single hour five times a week has unfortunately slightly limited the length of discussions but not their quality.

          • Gregg Smith

            For once I agree with you.

          • Gregg Smith

            I have to point out that if you are defining “reliable”, “experts” and “track records” because of what others tell you about someone instead of first hand knowledge you are fooling yourself. This is even more true if the others have an agenda.

          • Ray in VT

            That is true, which is why I suppose that one must occasionally subject oneself to the nonsense that right wing talk radio spews in order to properly appreciate the inanity of it.  For instance, if one thinks that Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh are reliable experts with good track records, then one is really fooling oneself.

            However, I was thinking more about the field of history, and looking at one’s credintials, publishing history and how that work has been received by other experts, and by that I mean people who have done long term, serious work on a particular topic, not some self taught online “expert” or a partisan author who makes only selective use of sources.

          • Gregg Smith

            Yes, Rush has a terrible track record… according to Media Matters.

          • Ray in VT

            I think that his history of offensive and/or inaccurate statements speaks well for itself.  Media Matters just puts together the lowlight reel.

          • Gregg Smith

            “Offensive” is in the ear of the beholder but I suppose the comment is fair. The truth can offend. 

            However, the latest analysis by the opinion auditing firm “The Sullivan group” in Sacramento has documented him  to be almost always right 99.5% of the time. This is despite being on the air talking extemporaneously 15 hours a week for decades.

            The thing is, I don’t think you can (and please don’t, it’s not an invite just a point) say you’ve heard Rush say anything that was wrong or inaccurate. But I bet you’ve read a ton of such at Media Matters. I have, they’re a joke. 

            The vast majority of the time, if Rush says something you can take it to the bank. I say that after listening for over 20 years the first several of which I spent tirelessly and passionately trying not to believe a word he said. My best friend of 35 years was a Democrat but we never talked politics. We were working together for a while and I used to listen to Rush and he got very angry. So he decided to listen and make a list of the BS just to prove me wrong. He tried very hard and failed miserably. Now he’s a Republican and listens everyday.

            I don’t expect you to take pull a William Raspberry or take the Limbaugh challenge. I’m just pointing out you form your opinions second hand from ideologies with an agenda. You know it in your heart.

          • Ray in VT

            “Offensive” is in the ear of the beholder, like calling Chelsea the White House dog, or saying that the Planned Parenthood would love to see Gosnell acquitted, or that Donovan McNabb got too much credit because the media wanted a black quarterback to succeed are all pretty offensive to most people with half of a brain.  Then you get into his “facts”, like people who pushed for same sex marriage are now pushing pedophelia, or his apparent lack of knowledge about the LRA, and the list can go on and on.  Here’s a bit about his “audit”:

            http://limbaughbook.blogspot.com/2011/07/limbaugh-lies-to-13-year-old-girl.html

            A firm run by a friend.  Is there any actual documentation?  I find it unlikely that there is.

            Rush is a joke, and a very bad one.  I actually watched his show on TV in high school in the mornings, and it didn’t take me too long to figure out that it was garbage, and I’ve never heard anything witty or informative over the years when I have tuned in, which I have.  I form my opinions from what I have experienced and from what I have read, so here, like many of your other opinions, you’re pretty off base.  I’ve found a number of times that he’s said that so and so said something, but when you track it down, the thing that he said that they said is not what they actually said, and it looks like some of his fans have the same bad habit.

            Most people with sense can tell an apple pie from a cow pie, but Rush feeds on those who can’t, as far as I’m concerned.

          • HonestDebate1

            You are sooooo proving my point. You gave me a hack Limbaugh site and no first hand account of squat. And it is hilarious, how they missed it completely, you did too. And they had to lie about what he says to do it. I found every single issue you cited on Media Matters. I feel confident that is your source and not Rush.

            The Chelsea thing did not happen. I was watching that show the day in question (first hand knowledge). Research it and you will ultimately be pointed to the late great Molly Ivins who infamously got it 100% wrong. It did not happen.

            He expressed an opinion about McNaab that others had at the time and many more have echoed since. I happened to disagree with him at first but have come to think he may have been right. But it’s not a matter of accuracy. As I said, the truth can be offensive. Here’s lefty site who agreed and made a case for it at the time: 

            http://www.slate.com/articles/sports/sports_nut/2003/10/rush_limbaugh_was_right.html

            Same thing with Gosnell. It was an opinion and I definitely agree with him on that one. I know they released a statement denying it, but it’s impossible to know. Planned Parenthood
            opposes a ban on partial birth abortion. How much difference is there between poking scissors in the back of the neck and snipping the spinal chord while the head is still in the womb as opposed to after? Other than putting the mother at risk by turning the baby around in the womb to come out feet first.

            I heard the show in reference to same sex and pedophilia. He didn’t make it up, he backed it up. Here’s the context or just scroll down and click the links for verification if you can’t stand to read it. But it won’t hurt.

            http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2013/01/07/don_t_pooh_pooh_the_left_s_push_to_normalize_pedophilia

            I don’t even know what the LRA is, maybe I’ll look it up at MM.

            But again you said he was inaccurate and listed no case of him being wrong on squat. I’m sure he must have gotten something wrong, I know he has because on those rear occasion he makes a very big deal about setting the record straight at the top of each hour.

            It’s all opinion, and if you listen (don’t) you understand his tactics which have the purpose of tweaking libs like you. And it works big time. So you end up getting worked up instead of considering the point he is trying to make. then it becomes all about him. It happens to me all the time here. My NAACP comments are a good example and BTW that’s mine, it did not come from him. Ditto my comment about Obama being passed out drunk for Benghazi. It’s a tactic to inspire honest debate.

            Here’s the thing, I’ve listened for over 20 years. You can give me any quote you want, accurate (Sandra Fluke) or inaccurate (Chelsea Clinton) but you will never convince me Rush is mean spirited or a bigot or a sexist. I know better and I understand his methods. You don’t other than what you’ve read. Perhaps I’m wrong but you have a feel for me and I doubt you think I’m mean or racist or bigoted or an idiot. I would not listen to anyone who was. 

            Did you read the Raspberry article (the other one is very good too)? Please do.

          • Ray in VT

            Hmmm, that’s not the story that you gave me the last time that I brought up the Chelsea thing.  I wonder which of those positions is true, if either of them is.

            As I have freely admitted, I choose not to waste my time listening to an unfunny blowhard rant on and on, spewing innacurrate and offensive information.  You don’t know what the LRA is?  Don’t worry, Rush didn’t either prior to giving them some props.

            I disagree with his opinion on McNabb, which I do find offensive, and an opinion from Slate does not, in my opinion, justify those comments.  Was McNabb Brady or Manning, not really, but he was pretty darned good and tough as nails.

            So you are contending that Rush mostly just pushes opinion and not facts?  I’d agree with that.  There’s quite a bit of the right wing echo chamber that is a fact free zone.

            I don’t really get worked up about much, and I’m certainly not going to do it over some waste of time like Rush, or Glenn Beck or Michael Savage.  Does it concern me that some people end up pushing the falsehoods that they spread?  Yes.

            I see little attempt on your part to inspire honest debate.  I see too much in the way of bombastic rhetoric and misquoted sources for my taste, and it looks like you’ve learned well from your 20 years of listening to Rush.  I prefer, largely, the approach and methods that I learned from my history professors in college.

          • HonestDebate1

            Up top, then I’m done with this topic because we’re getting nowhere and I’d  like to keep what little is left of the immense respect I used to have for you despite our differences. It all started going south when I informed you my opinion of your positions was the same as yours for mine. You found that hard to accept. It was fine when you thought my opinions were whacked and I kept quiet about yours and tried to stick to the issues. Those days are gone. Sad.

          • Ray in VT

            I’m fine here.  It really went south for me with the whole “Klan with a tan” comment, plus the myriad of misquotes and the “Bush never lied” stuff.  If you want to think that I’m whacked for believing the scientific community on climate change or whatever, then that’s fine.  It’s no skin off of my back.

          • HonestDebate1

            I misquoted no one.

          • Ray in VT

            How about Phil Jones or The Economist?

          • HonestDebate1

            And I never said you were whacked, that’s the point. I said IMO some of your positions were whacked and only after you said the same of mine, over and over again without my rising to the bait. I just argued the issues. Then you began to get nasty and personal regularly. Civil debate is possible until it get’s personal. There is a huge chasm between saying someone is whacked and saying a position they hold is whacked. 

            Klan with a tan is not my phrase, it comes from a black man but I agree with it. But you never addressed the issue you just got worked up over the words.

            You don’t agree with 97% of climate scientist but you say so despite being shown it’s a false claim. That’s not honest debate.

          • Ray in VT

            I think that if one believes in enough whacked positions, then that probably makes one whacked.  Debate, of any sort, is not possible when one chooses to ignore facts, create their own definitions for terms or apply such definitions or standards selectively, and I believe that you do all of those things.  That is not a personal attack.  That is my opinion, which I have based upon your comment history and my interactions with you.  If you consider that to be an attack, then fine, although, to a certain extent, it is, in my opinion, no more an attack that to observe that my wife is short (both relatively and when compared to other similar women).

            I know your source for Klan with a tan, and I don’t care if he is black.  It is a disgusting comparison to compare the NAACP to such a notorious group as the KKK.  The NAACP does not have a history of racial discrimination, violence, intimidation, murder and the promotion of racial supremacy, as the KKK does, so that is the basis for my objection.  Seeing as how the KKK was largely southern, conservative and states-rights oriented, should we then compare it to the TEA Party?  We could make a case for that, but don’t get worked up.  Those are just words.

            Numerous surveys have provided a number close to 97%, and I think that some of the criticisms of the Cook paper are fairly baseless, coming, once again, from the same incestuous community of skeptics, deniers and industry funded groups that have lost the debate within the scientific community.  To argue that there is still substantial doubt on that issue in the scientific community is not honest debate, no matter what Anthony Watts says.

      • Ed75

        On the other hand, in what context would ‘Then we will kill the child’ be acceptable?

        Also on the other hand, Lila Rose is the best.

        • Ray in VT

          Killing a child that has been born is unacceptable, and that is why Gosnell was sent to jail.  I have grave concerns regarding late term abortions, but I trust women and their doctors to do what is best, as I do not want politicians or religious leaders getting to make that call for my wife or anyone else.  Lila Rose is the best at what?  Doctoring video?

          • Don_B1

            You are so correct.

            What Ed neglects is that if abortion is made illegal, the type of place that Gosnell ran is all that will be available for most women, and there will be takers of which too many will be harmed.

            But Ed lives in an ideal world where other considerations never enter.As for late-term abortions, there are real cases where a pregnancy goes wrong in the later stages, as demonstrated when President Clinton presented five women who had to face that problem. In their cases the continuation of their pregnancy, which would lead to a still birth or a child who would live for a few months at most, could also lead to obstetrical problems that would make the woman unable to have children in the future. An abortion was the safest way to preserve that capability and in some cases the life of the mother.

    • J__o__h__n

      I can’t wait until the anti Christ arrives with his army of stem cell derived gay clones to force abortions on everyone.  Think of all the natural disasters god can send in response.  You will have an unending source of new material for Friday news updates.

      • Ed75

        That does sound like quite a nightmare!

  • Wm_James_from_Missouri

    News break: Members of the US military seem to be playing by the Spartan sexual playbook. Sexually abuse your fellow recruits, especially if they are male, so that you may turn them into the vile monster that you, yourself are. What’s next, the children in the little village down the road? My country ‘tis of WHAAAAAT….?

  • StilllHere

    The Obama administration is out of control; using the IRS as a political weapon, violating Constitutional rights, and the cover-up scandal.  

  • Wm_James_from_Missouri

    For the life of me, I can not understand why the

    Press in not all over the two Utah Senators, Orrin Hatch and Mike Lee and probing into the secrete spy center, in Bluffdale Utah, that is spying on reporters, and Tea Party members as well as every American’s phone calls and emails. Why isn’t the press tying this computer complex into the IRS scandal ? Does anyone know for what the gathered information is being used ? How can we be sure that information isn’t being given to the IRS as well as private corporate interest or even foreign interest ? How can we be sure that information is not being gathered from any other government agency, say, the FBI, and being given to “The Agency” ? How can we really know what is true and what is not true? Doesn’t this latest IRS scandal prove that rogue elements in any agency, will do whatever they feel can get away with?

    Maybe we could use a law that would allow a ‘member” of the Press, access to these agencies, and to report to the Justice Department ! A checks and balances approach.

    —————–

    “New Utah NSA Spy Center – Stores EVERYTHING “

    http://modernsurvivalblog.com/communications/new-utah-nsa-spy-center-stores-everything/

     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

  • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

    FTA:
    Martinez agrees, saying the administration is always trying to blame wrongdoing “on the little guy.” She compared the White House controversies from the last few months to “Watergate on steroids.”

    “Watching this IRS targeting, the Benghazi hearing and the Boston bombings, it’s just overwhelming what is happening in this administration. Why is one scandal after another erupting right now?” Martinez said.

    http://www.lowellsun.com/todaysheadlines/ci_23238066/greater-lowell-tea-party-founder-calls-irs-flap#ixzz2TY2CAp1O

    (edited to correct link)

  • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

    FTA:
    NORTH ANDOVER — Conservative activists in the Merrimack Valley vigorously condemned the IRS’ alleged targeting of the Tea Party and other right-of-center groups, brought to light this week by an IRS supervisor.“I think it’s very distressing,” said Christine Morabito of Haverhill, who has headed the Greater Boston Tea Party for the last year and a half. It’s “frightening,” she said, that the organizations affected are “advocates for limited government.”

    http://www.eagletribune.com/local/x1169352297/Area-activists-speak-out-against-IRS-alleged-targeting-of-politically-conservative-groups

  • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

    FTA:
    Sarah Hall Ingram, the IRS executive in charge of the tax exempt division in 2010 when it began targeting conservative Tea Party, evangelical and pro-Israel groups for harrassment, got more than $100,000 in bonuses between 2009 and 2012.

    More recently, Ingram was promoted to serve as director of the tax agency’s Obamacare program office, a position that put her in charge of the vast expansion of the IRS’ regulatory power and staffing in connection with federal health care, ABC reported earlier today.

    http://washingtonexaminer.com/article/2529899

    • Gregg Smith

      But they fired the guy who took her place a week ago. So action was taken.

      • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

        They let him leave early.

  • notafeminista

    Anyone remember “MadTV”?

    Occasionally they’d run a feature about a sort of low-end dating service (tongue in cheek of course) called  “Lowered Expectations”.

    It’s come to mind several times over the last week or ten days.

    • Ray in VT

      I don’t recall those.  Where they early on or later?  They did some really nice work for a while, but the show went down hill a lot in the last couple of seasons, but the cast with Will Sasso, Alex Borstein, Debra Wilson, and the rest was pretty awesome.  My wife just made a “Stick Chicks” reference the other day.

  • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

    Why didn’t Romney… why didn’t the Republicans… root out these Obama scandals before the last election?

    4. Obama’s prime target was the Tea Party (which had crushed him in the 2010 midterms), and the establishment Republicans were at odds with the Tea Party movement. I’m not saying I believe this, but sober reflection tells us we need to redraw the line between paranoia and vigilance. The theory is that establishment Republicans appreciated the suppression of the Tea Party.

    http://www.althouse.blogspot.com/2013/05/why-didnt-romney-why-didnt-republicans.html

    • 1Brett1

      Great, we get to listen to your Tea Party persecution complex all day…

      • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

        Listen???
        The best I hoped for was to be heard.  
        Thanks for the response.

      • jefe68

        The guy is foaming at the mouth with joy.
        They want government to fail and for President Obama to fail even more. 

        It’s pathetic. 

        • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

          Your bigotry not withstanding, I do not want to see our government fail.  How can one be a patriot and wish such a thing?  As for our President, My argument is not personal but ideological.  It is not so much a question of wanting it to fail as of knowing it will fail and leave us the worse for it.  

          • Gregg Smith

            I agree, I don’t want our government to fail. I want the attempt to fundamentally transform America to fail. But it isn’t failing.

          • Don_B1

            @jefe68:disqus @1Brett1:disqus 

            RWB, you may well not want the government to “fail.” But you are ideologically committed to reducing the “size” of government to the point that the middle and lower income workers no longer get any government help with their lives while the wealthy continue to get tax cuts and laws allowing monopolies, etc to support their rent-seeking activities, which do not grow the economy, particularly for the benefit of all citizens, including the non-wealthy.That is a recipe for U.S. of A. failure.Gregg’s claim that President Obama is trying to transform America is mostly false in that he is trying to preserve the ability of the middle and lower class to grow and prosper. His failure in doing this is due to his accepting some of the austerity promoted by the Tea Party Republicans and it si what will transform America from a full democracy to a plutocracy, which will be the result, wittingly or not, of your and Gregg’s policies.

        • 1Brett1

          They all (the neocon contingent) seem to be frothing for something along the lines of impeachment and looking to make every problem that happens in government during this administration into “another example” of the worst systemic, conspiratorial and fundamentally corrupt administration in history. I find these various scandals to be very problematic, but an honest discussion and examination of the problems is simply not possible in a climate of their seizing every moment to make mountains out of molehills and to exaggerate every problem to the level of “high crimes and misdemeanors.”

          Republicans in Congress seem more invested in frittering their time away with these trumped up scandals rather than governing. Conservatives in the media seem more invested in promoting divisiveness and political assassination of the president and Democrats in general. And neocons on this forum seem to be lapping it all up like thirsty dogs at a bowl of water. It’s disgusting.

      • Gregg Smith

        The Tea Party is made up of good decent people. They are concerned for the nation. They are peaceful and clean up after themselves. It rose spontaneously from town hall meetings. The seeds were planted by Bush and his reckless spending and bloated government. It’s democracy at it’s best.

        They have been maligned as racist, as anti-government, as worthy of suspicion over jihadist, as podunk, backwoods religious nut cases. And now we learn they were targeted by the IRS.

        There is no persecution complex there is a sick, twisted and false (not to mention slanderous) high tech lynching of good Americans.

        Why aren’t you outraged?

        • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

          Thank you Gregg.

        • 1Brett1

          The IRS should be targeting NO ONE to scrutinize by virtue of their political views/affiliations. My problem with their actions (not their intentions, mind, as we are not far enough into the investigation to say for sure what their intentions were), is that they seemed to not also scrutinize liberal groups applying for the same tax-exempt status in the same manner that they did the Tea Party groups. THAT IS unconscionable and indicates they did single out conservative groups. 

          I think the whole flood of applications to get tax-exempt status should be examined closely, as the whole mess smacks of gaming the system.

          The problem has been brought to light, and, hopefully, the full extent of consequences will be applied to those who allowed the practice to operate in such a manner. 

          While the argument that the IRS has engaged in such practices almost since its inception does NOT now excuse it, no Tea Party group was denied their status, ultimately, and their speech was not prevented, only their ability to enjoy tax-exempt status, as they exercised their 1st Amendment rights, was delayed…yeah, hardly the scandal of the century.

    • MadMarkTheCodeWarrior

      Let us wait for all the facts… A story on Salon today indicates that the IRS scrutiny started under a Bush appointee.

      • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

        A Fact which supports the point I am trying to make.  The Tea Party movement is in opposition to sacred cows of both Democrats and Republicans.  And the faceless nameless bureaucrats that are trying to turn Washington DC into something more like the Capitol City from the Hunger Games.  

      • Gregg Smith

        The Bush appointee thing is a red herring. It refers to Doug Shulman. He donated $500 to the DNC in 2004 so automatic assumptions are false. Steven Miller was appointed in 2012 Obama. The  chief counsel of the IRS was also an Obama appointee who should have thrown the flag.

        It’s a lame attempt to blame Bush as always. Do you think it’s significant that a Clinton appointee told Bush it was a “slam dunk”?

        • Don_B1

          In what context did the “Clinton appointee” tell “Bush it [?????] was a ‘slam dunk’?”?

          What other contributions did Steven Miller make in 2004? Did he also contribute to Republicans?

          • Gregg Smith

            It was George Tenet telling Bush the WMD were a slam dunk.

            It wasn’t Miller (the Obama appointee) it was the Democrat Doug Shulman who was appointed by Bush.

    • hennorama

      RWB – does the Worcester Tea Party have 501(c)(4) tax-exempt status?

      • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

        We are a 501(C) 3 educational organization.

        • hennorama

          RWB – TY for your prompt reply. I was hoping you might be able to add some personal experience to the 501(c)(4) issue.

          Despite that, do you have any comment on the application/approval process your group experienced?

          • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

            We have no comment.
            But we are inviteing the Worcester office of the IRS to join us in supporting the Jimmy Fund by fielding a team at the WCRN Wiffle Ball Classic.

          • hennorama

            RWB – TY again for your response. I presume the Jimmy Fund is a local charity. Good luck with your fundraising efforts.

          • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

            Yes the help children with cancer treatments.

            http://www.jimmyfund.org/

          • hennorama

            Hey! They just mentioned the Jimmy Fund on air!

        • nj_v2

          Thus giving new meaning to “education.”

  • madnomad554

    A couple of NSA facts

    • Produces 40,000 pounds a day in shredded documents. • Has its own
    restricted exit off the Baltimore-Washington Parkway. At the end of the
    ramp is a security booth and a guard who turns away motorists not
    employed by or officially visiting the NSA. • Yearly electric bill: $21
    million 

    And this is 2006 info

  • Ray in VT

    Another review of the peer reviewed scientific literature shows a high level of agreement in the scientific community that climate change is happening and that human activity is playing a role:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-zeller-jr/climate-change-study_b_3285245.html?utm_hp_ref=green

    • Gregg Smith

      “We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.”

      So 2/3′s expressed no position but 97% of 1/3 endorsed AGW. And this is going back to 1991 before we learned about cooked models and flawed algorithms. It’s before Phil Jones admitted there has been no significant warming since 1998. The same Phil Jones whose date fueled the highly suspect 2007 IPCC report. And the survey (not climate study, no climate data is mentioned) stops at 2011 omitting  the new data confirming Jones’ admition.

      “Scientific Consensus” is an oxymoron.

      I’m not interested in debating AGW with the apocalyptic fringe, just clarifying. You did say “high level” and not majority, and there certainly is not a majority or vast majority as you have in the past. I suppose you can say 1/3 is a high level but what are we to assume about the other 2/3′s?

      • jefe68
        • Ray in VT

          But what does the Discovery Institute say?

          • jefe68

            I know you’re joking here, but they are really out there in my view.

          • Ray in VT

            People can and do listen to people like the Discovery Institute or the Creation Museum.  There’s also the moves to undermine evolutionary theory in the schools, and it does seem to me that there is a fair amount of overlap between the creationists and the climate deniers.

          • jefe68

            That’s the problem and it’s a scary one.

            Speaking of the Creation museum have seen this?
            http://phys.org/news165555744.html

          • Ray in VT

            No, I hadn’t seen that, but I did see this a while back:

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1xUiuZvUuw

        • Gregg Smith

          97% of 33% going back to 1991, all data before 2008 is highly suspect.

          • jefe68

            So you’re going to come to your conclusions based on one year being highly suspect?

          • Gregg Smith

            My conclusions were from the study Ray posted. Or more accurately from the study the opinion piece he posted was based on. It went back to 1991. All data before 2008 is highly suspect. That’s 17 years of bad data citing a large percentage of a minority of who knows what. The last time Ray did this it was “Earth Scientist”… whatever that means.

          • Ray in VT

            Don’t like the data, research and conclusions, then just try to discredit it.  That sounds like something out of the Saul Alinsky playbook, Gregg.

            So what is it in your mind that says that we need to throw out 17 years of global scientific research?  I’m sure that there is a really good reason.

            At least the surveys of scientists that I have posted have dealt with people who belong to a respected body or who publish in the field.  If you are not aware of the difference between “no statistically significant warming” and “no warming”, then it does not surprise me that you know what “earth scientist” means.

            I do appreciate the mention, but get me out of your head, dude.

          • Gregg Smith

            I know earth scientist does not mean climate scientist.

            The scandals at the CRU at East Anglia were discovered in 2008, maybe it was 2009.

            Look it up someplace reputable because I don’t have any use debating the apocalyptic fringe.

            Poo poo away.

            http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html

            http://www.foxnews.com/story/2009/11/30/climate-change-scientists-admit-dumping-data/

          • Ray in VT

            So, please define climate scientist for all of us, and tell us how someone with a Ph.D. in Oceanography, for instance, who may have published extensively on changing ocean environments does not qualify, yet how a former TV weatherman is a major voice to be heeded.
             
            Ah, East Anglia.  The “scandal” where nothing improper was found to have been done regarding the collection and analysis of data.  Yet more smoke with no fire.  I have looked that up someplace reputable.  You might want to take your own advice.

            http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/global_warming_contrarians/debunking-misinformation-stolen-emails-climategate.html

          • Gregg Smith

            I’d rather talk about the FACT that neither the Cairo orBenghazi incidents had anything to do with a stupid video.

          • Ray in VT

            Trying to change the subject because you’re trying to stand on top of a swamp?

            I’m sure that you would.  I doubt the Weekly Standard’s reporting, considering that it is at odds with reporting done with the actual protestors at the time.  Fact has been proved in the latter, but no such fact exists for the former.

            Evidence was eventually produced proving that the Benghazi attack had no prior protest.  That has been well established, and no one has been arguing that for some time, except, perhaps, for the liberals in your own head.

          • Gregg Smith

            They are an  environmental  lobbying group!

          • Ray in VT

            Who?  All of the reports and investigations that they linked to?

          • Ray in VT

            Sounds like this lady’s got more scientific cred in the field than the people that you like to link to:

            http://www.ucsusa.org/about/staff/staff/melanie-fitzpatrick.html

          • 1Brett1

            Ray, you’re just jealous of his climate-denying freedoms! …When we let the climate scientists band together and conspire to spew their Chicken Little propaganda, then the terrorists have won!

          • Gregg Smith

            I didn’t read that for two reasons. The first is the format but the second is what I already stated up front. 

          • Ray in VT

            I will gladly repost it, then.

            Trying to change the subject because you’re trying to stand on top of a swamp?

            I’m sure that you would.  I doubt the Weekly Standard’s reporting,
            considering that it is at odds with reporting done with the actual
            protestors at the time.  Fact has been proved in the latter, but no such
            fact exists for the former.

            Evidence was eventually produced proving that the Benghazi attack had
            no prior protest.  That has been well established, and no one has been
            arguing that for some time, except, perhaps, for the liberals in your
            own head.

          • Gregg Smith

            I told you up front I have no interest in the debate. 

            So the WS made up the tweet from Zawahiri? It wasn’t the anniversary of 9/11? The video was widely deseminated? you’re losing it.

          • Ray in VT

            So what the people on the scene said were their motivations are totally negated by a tweet from one guy.  You’ve shovelling awfully hard today.

          • Gregg Smith

            The tweet was from Mohammed El Zawahiri, a big shot with the Egyptian Islamic Jihad and the brother of the leader of Al Qaeda. It didn’t mention the video.

            The people on the scene in Cairo were hoisting an Al Qaeda flag over the Cairo Embassy and chanting “Obama, Obama, We’re all Osama”. 

            Dollars to donuts more Muslims saw Obama crowing endlessly about killing their leader than ever even heard of the silly
            video. The video hits have been measured, no one saw it until Obama promoted it.

            At best it was a pretext but make no mistake, it was inspired by radical Islamist and we knew it.

          • Ray in VT

            Ah, I see, so a bunch of people saw the tweet from an Al-Qaeda guy, but missed the video, which had just aired on Egyptian TV, and then when they got to the scene, they just told people it was about the video in order to cover for Al Qaeda.  That seems totally believable.  Those guys will stop at nothing in order to spread the Caliphate.

          • Gregg Smith

            Well your last sentence hits home but that’s about it.

            Al Qaeda has a few tweet followers. I might take this up top because I have a question for everybody.

          • Don_B1

            And that year is ONLY  “suspect” in the minds of Gregg and other slavish followers of WUWT.

            But Gregg (like the posters on WUWT) are clever cherry pickers that regularly take statements out of context.

            There are thousands of scientific papers published that cover aspects of climate science, and a large fraction are on small details that do not call for a “support AGW” statement, particularly in the Abstract (summary). But Gregg uses the ignorance of that fact to distort the fact that 97% of those papers which have results pertaining to possible impact of human activities on Climate Change do in fact show that humans are affecting climate to the detriment of all higher life forms.

      • Ray in VT

        No opinion is just that.  No opinion.  Many studies just look at data and do not look for a cause.

        “of the more than 4,000 abstracts that had anything to say about
        human-driven climate change, 97 percent endorsed the notion. A little
        less than 3 percent either rejected the idea or remained undecided.”

        That’s pretty significant.  I am also not interested in debating climate change, especially with those who seem to want to give equal weight to a former TV weatherman and the NAS, or cite Steven Goddard over NOAA.

        I thought that there hadn’t been any significant warming for either 20 years or decades.  I can’t remember which, although temperatures have been relatively flat, although at a high flat, for about 10 years if one looks at the rolling multi year average.

        So, let’s be clear, 97% of peer reviewed scientific journals that have expressed an opinion on climate change and its causes have come to the conclusion that it is real and that humans are playing a role.  The scientific community has spoken, and they seem pretty convinced, and industry funded skeptics and creationists can’t change that.

        • Gregg Smith

          4K is significant but there were another 8K of the scientific community, which is twice as significant.

          Phil Jones said no warming since 1998 and the new data suggest 1996. It’s CO2 levels that are the lowest in 20 years. Data is data.

          Steven Goddard’s data came from the NOAA. I’ll stick with NOAA you can have the IPCC.

          Whatever, it’s a nice cool cool spring day in a country led by liars and cheats using the power of Government to harass her citizens. The weather is the least of my worries.

          • Ray in VT

            Four thousand is significant, regardless of whether or not the other eight thousand want to take a position.  Not taking the position doesn’t make one a skeptic or a denier.  Few take that position.

            Phil Jones said “no statistically significant warming”, not no warming.  “Statistically significant” is a mathematical measure.  Here is an actual quote from him:

            BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

            Phil Jones: Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend
            is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical
            significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods,
            and much less likely for shorter periods.It’s sort of like the difference between a scientific theory and one’s one theory of whatever, which can be just an opinion.I pointed out the contradictions between Goddard’s claim and NOAA’s data the other day.  I’ll take NOAA and the IPCC, and you can have Goddard, Watts and the Oregon Institute.CO2 levels are not the lowest in 20 years.

          • 1Brett1

            “It’s a cool spring day”=there’s is no anthropogenic correlation to climate change.

            “I didn’t go to college, and I did fine; I must be stupid”=people don’t need college to be competitive.

            I see a pattern of using one’s personal, myopic experience to form a broad opinion about how the rest of the world works, and it is not a very sound approach.

          • Gregg Smith

            I think none of that. Please don’t tell me what I think.

          • Don_B1

            I am sure you will tell us, but as soon as you state something that can be shown to be wrong, you weasel out of it with some lame excuse, like a flat statement that “I didn’t say that.”

        • Don_B1

          Ray, the surface temperatures have been rising though slightly slower than in the previous decades (but any measurement over less than 15 years is statistically invalid because of the large variation in weather data) but when the data for ocean warming, which takes increased heat out of the atmosphere and buries it deep in the ocean, has been more than making up for the “lost” warming of the atmosphere. It has only been recently that data at depths below the 700m level have been verified and shown rising.

          See:

          http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/01/15/1452471/noaa-nasa-2012-warmest-la-nina-year-on-record-sustaining-long-term-climate-warming-trend/

          for a discussion of the latest NOAA/NASA data.

          During El Niño years the ocean tends to give up heat (or absorb less) in the Pacific equatorial areas while in La Niña years there is higher net heat absorption and some cooling affects on the atmosphere which reduce the “greenhouse effect.”

    • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

      The study cited provides data only about people’s belief.  It does not add facts supporting anthropomorphic climate change.  Jupiter is going to make an appearance just because there are Romans that believe he will.  
      Why do you think they changed the name from global warming to climate change?  Global warming was provably wrong if the earth did not actually get warmer.  But there will always be weather changes so this way they can continue to claim doomsday, and the need for worldwide governmental controls to prevent it, no matter what actually happens.  

      • Ray in VT

        The study provides data on the conclusions that the best scientific research has reached.  If you want to classify the conclusions of scientists as belief akin to religious belief, then feel free, although I definitely think that you are wrong.

        The terms global warming and climate change have both been used in the scientific literature since I think the 1950s, and the best available evidence says that the Earth has warmed.  Even BEST, which got funded in part by the Kochs, said so.  Bury your head in the sand if you like, but changes are going on, and the people who really study this hard think that we are playing a role.

        • Gregg Smith

          In the 70′s the term was “global cooling”. 

          • Ray in VT

            Are you referring to some popular news articles that talked about a coming ice age, which did not jive with the real science?

          • Gregg Smith

            It was on the cover of Time. I was a teenager and it scared me to death.

          • Ray in VT

            Maybe you should have read a science journal then, and not Time, if you wanted the hard facts.

          • Gregg Smith

            I was 14.

          • Ray in VT

            So?  I was reading the sort of history that college libraries collect for their students when I was about 12.

          • Gregg Smith

            But you’re smarter than me.

          • Don_B1

            Whichever of you is smarter, it is clear that Gregg is willing to sell out reality for ideology.

            That makes him irrelevant to the discussion.

          • nj_v2

            Ha, ha! Leave it to Greggg to trot out yet another debunked denialist trope.

            http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/the-global-cooling-myth/

            [[ Every now and again, the myth that “we shouldn’t believe global warming predictions now, because in the 1970′s they were predicting an ice age and/or cooling” surfaces. Recently, George Will mentioned it in his column (see Will-full ignorance) and the egregious Crichton manages to say “in the 1970′s all the climate scientists believed an ice age was coming” (see Michael Crichton’s State of Confusion ). You can find it in various other places too [here, mildly here, etc]. But its not an argument used by respectable and knowledgeable skeptics, because it crumbles under analysis. That doesn’t stop it repeatedly cropping up in newsgroups though. ]]

            http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2008-02-20-global-cooling_N.htm

            Study debunks ‘global cooling’ concern of ’70s

            [[ But Thomas Peterson of the National Climatic Data Center surveyed dozens of peer-reviewed scientific articles from 1965 to 1979 and found that only seven supported global cooling, while 44 predicted warming. Peterson says 20 others were neutral in their assessments of climate trends.The study reports, "There was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed into an imminent ice age."A review of the literature suggests that, to the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists' thinking about the most important forces shaping Earth's climate on human time scales."]](snipped)

          • Gregg Smith

            In the 70′s the term was “global cooling”.
            Do you deny that? I didn’t say they were right, I said that was the term. Of course they were  just as wrong then as they are now.

            http://xenohistorian.faithweb.com/holybook/images/124690.gif

            http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ECwMHWFIjdw/TyabTauvKHI/AAAAAAAAEsM/K_JN0tHae38/s400/Time-Global-Cooling.png

            http://symonsez.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/global-cooling.jpg

          • nj_v2

            The possibilities here:

            Greggg didn’t read the refutation.

            Greggg read it, but his cognitive issues prevented him from understanding it.

            Greggg just ignores anything that doesn’t confirm his delusions and distorted understanding.

          • Gregg Smith

            Propaganda is propaganda. Multiple Time covers hit the masses. The masses don’t take surveys. Dolt.

            I ignore anyone who takes what I write and turns it into what they think I think.

          • Don_B1

            So like MSM today, Time liked getting magazine sales by hyping something that had no basis in fact.

            In those days, glaciers seemed like a bigger “threat” than “warming” because no one had a good understanding of what climate change would mean.

            But Gregg the master propagandist of lies will spread the disinformation in the teeth of scientific evidence.

          • Don_B1

            I suspect the answer is a combination of 2) and 3).

            Since Gregg did not respond to the points in the refutation it is not wrong to speculate on why that might be. After all, Gregg has no scruples about speculating on what people think when he can make some (usually detrimental) assertion about the person without having any, repeat any, empirical evidence for it.

            And then I see he went ad hominem to boot.

        • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

          You are wrong, the study says no such thing.  It only sites the beliefs of Americans. Not Scientist.  

          Introduction
          This report is based on findings from a nationally representative survey – Climate Change in the American Mind – conducted by the Yale Project on Climate Change communication and the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication. Interview dates: April 8 – 15. Interviews: 1,045Adults (18+). Total average margin of error: +/- 3 percentage points at the 95% confidence level. The research was funded by the Surdna Foundation, the 11th Hour Project, the Grantham Foundation, and the V.K. Rasmussen Foundation.

          • Ray in VT

            Apparently you are not looking at the study of the scientific literature, which is the crux of the article to which I linked.  I am not particularly concerned with the opinion of the general public, considering that some 15% think that the Sun orbits the Earth.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            Do believe there is no corruption in the peer reviewed literature?

            From the exposed climategate emails:

            In July 2004, referring to Climate Research having published a paper by “MM”, thought to be Ross McKitrick and Pat Michaels, and
            another paper by Eugenia Kalnay and Ming Cai, Phil Jones emailed his colleagues saying:

            “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin [TRENBERTH] and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”
            http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/14/fuzzy-math-in-a-new-soon-to-be-published-paper-john-cook-claims-consensus-on-32-6-of-scientific-papers-that-endorse-agw/#more-86303

          • Ray in VT

            There can be instances, although it is the best system that has yet to be established for ensuring quality and validity of work.  For whatever it’s faults, the process is certainly far better than having non-experts with questionable funding sources getting treated as though they are big thinkers that should be given the same footing as respected scientific bodies.

          • Don_B1

            Ray, in addition to your correct defense of the peer review process, in the e-mails Worried cites, some of the scientists were “venting” over the time they would have to take from their work to satisfy demands of “deniers,” but they never did anything beyond the venting and that has been the agreed result by over four scientific, government and other investigative bodies.

            I doubt that most people could honestly deny venting some anger when asked to do something profoundly stupid and time wasting.

          • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

            On that we can argee.

          • Don_B1

            But the study also cited the studies of climate scientists, showing how far the public is from what scientists actually know about climate science.

            And it was the opinions of climate scientists, based on their empirical work, that Gregg was trying to downgrade but all he did was to show that he, himself, was the chump through his demonstrable cherry-picking of the study data.

      • Gregg Smith

        I just want to know whether AGW causes droughts of floods. 

        • Ray in VT

          Droughts of floods?  Like a lack of floods?

          • Gregg Smith

            Thanks, I’ll fix it but please help me with the answer.

          • Ray in VT

            The answer is that it can be both, depending upon how the climate changes in various regions.

          • Gregg Smith

            Okay, gotcha’.

        • Don_B1

          It does both, by creating long periods of no rain with occasional huge downbursts.

          Areas in the world that have had high levels of annual rainfall will likely have even more though it will come more in bunches and previously dry areas (e.g., the American Southwest) will have less annual precipitation with occasional heavy downbursts.

          Thus desert areas will have more flash flooding.

      • J__o__h__n

        The concensus from peer-reviewed scientific literature is not the same thing as a public opinion poll. 

      • nj_v2

        Of course, scientifically illiterate, Clown Car Denialists like RWB can’t possibly even tell us who, exactly the “they” are who “changed the name from global warming to climate change,” let alone document how “they” did it, because all these ignorant monkeys do is parrot idiotic, right-wing, talking points from fossil-fuel-funded hack groups.

        http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-global-warming.htm

        There have long been claims that some unspecificed “they” has “changed the name from ‘global warming’ to ‘climate change’”. In reality, the two terms mean different things, have both been used for decades, and the only individual to have specifically advocated changing the name in this fashion is a global warming ‘skeptic’.

        Both of the terms in question are used frequently in the scientific literature, because they refer to two different physical phenomena.  As the name suggests, ‘global warming’ refers to the long-term trend of a rising average global temperature, which you can see here:

        Thus while the physical phenomena are causally related, they are not the same thing.  Humangreenhouse gas emissions are causing global warming, which in turn is causing climate change.  However, because the terms are causally related, they are often used interchangeably in normal daily communications.
        Both Terms Have Long Been UsedThe argument “they changed the name” suggests that the term ‘global warming’ was previously the norm, and the widespread use of the term ‘climate change’ is now.  However, this is simply untrue.  For example, a seminal climate science work is Gilbert Plass’ 1956 study’The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change’ (which coincidentally estimated the climate sensitivity to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide at 3.6°C, not far off from today’s widely accepted most likely value of 3°C).  Barrett and Gast published a letter in Science in 1971 entitled simply ‘Climate Change’.  The journal ‘Climatic Change’ was created in 1977 (and is still published today).  The IPCC was formed in 1988, and of course the ‘CC’ is ‘climate change’, not ‘global warming’.  There are many, many other examples of the use of the term ‘climate change’ many decades ago.  There is nothing new whatsoever about the usage of the term.In fact, according to Google Books, the usage of both terms in books published in the United States has increased at similar rates over the past 40 years:…(snipped)

      • nj_v2

        Of course, scientifically illiterate, Clown Car Denialists like RWB can’t possibly even tell us who, exactly the “they” are who “changed the name from global warming to climate change,” let alone document how “they” did it, because all these ignorant monkeys do is parrot idiotic, right-wing, talking points from fossil-fuel-funded hack groups.

        http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-global-warming.htm

        There have long been claims that some unspecificed “they” has “changed the name from ‘global warming’ to ‘climate change’”. In reality, the two terms mean different things, have both been used for decades, and the only individual to have specifically advocated changing the name in this fashion is a global warming ‘skeptic’.

        Both of the terms in question are used frequently in the scientific literature, because they refer to two different physical phenomena.  As the name suggests, ‘global warming’ refers to the long-term trend of a rising average global temperature, which you can see here:

        Thus while the physical phenomena are causally related, they are not the same thing.  Humangreenhouse gas emissions are causing global warming, which in turn is causing climate change.  However, because the terms are causally related, they are often used interchangeably in normal daily communications.
        Both Terms Have Long Been UsedThe argument “they changed the name” suggests that the term ‘global warming’ was previously the norm, and the widespread use of the term ‘climate change’ is now.  However, this is simply untrue.  For example, a seminal climate science work is Gilbert Plass’ 1956 study’The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change’ (which coincidentally estimated the climate sensitivity to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide at 3.6°C, not far off from today’s widely accepted most likely value of 3°C).  Barrett and Gast published a letter in Science in 1971 entitled simply ‘Climate Change’.  The journal ‘Climatic Change’ was created in 1977 (and is still published today).  The IPCC was formed in 1988, and of course the ‘CC’ is ‘climate change’, not ‘global warming’.  There are many, many other examples of the use of the term ‘climate change’ many decades ago.  There is nothing new whatsoever about the usage of the term.In fact, according to Google Books, the usage of both terms in books published in the United States has increased at similar rates over the past 40 years:…(snipped)

        • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

          I have a regular car, it is a Ford.

          /Humor

    • hennorama

      Nothing to worry about, nothing to see here, please carry on with your usual activities, humans:

      AT UC SAN DIEGO

      CO2 concentration on May 15, 2013

      Latest reading: 399.74 ppm

      http://keelingcurve.ucsd.edu/

      • WorriedfortheCountry

         LOL.  It’s like the employment numbers — revised downwards.  I thought the hit 400ppm last week?

        • hennorama

          OPC – Per the LA Times, “NOAA revised its May 9 reading at the Mauna Loa observatory in Hawaii, saying it remained fractions of a point below the level of 400 ppm, at 399.89.”

          http://www.latimes.com/news/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-carbon-dioxide-400-20130513,0,7196126.story

          The keelingcurve.ucsd.edu website also has a “Special note on the May 9, 2013 reading”:

          “May 10 Comment:

          “NOAA has reported 400.03 for May 9, 2013, while Scripps has reported 399.73. The difference partly reflects different reporting periods. NOAA uses UTC, whereas Scripps uses local time in Hawaii to define the 24-hr reporting period. If Scripps were to use same reporting period as NOAA, we would report 400.08 for May 9.”

          See:http://keelingcurve.ucsd.edu/special-note-on-may-9-2013-reading/

          I’ll allow the “It’s like the employment numbers …” portion of your comment to pass unremarked upon at this time.

          • Don_B1

            It is only a small technical glitch which will be ignorable in a week or a month as the CO2 level continues on its upward trend.

            But it is fun to watch the climate change deniers grasp as little straws in their desperate attempt to hold their indefensible position against the stream of data disproving their tenets as the lies they are.

            The real “tipping point” will come when laws are passed that hold them accountable for their false propaganda, just as the cigarette manufacturers are now for lying about the dangers of smoking.

    • WorriedfortheCountry

       The Cook paper is a farce.  Good for  a few chuckles but certainly not science.

      http://rankexploits.com/musings/2013/i-do-not-think-it-means-what-you-think-it-means/

      • Ray in VT

        It’s not as much of a chuckle as the non-science of the climate deniers.  It’s certainly a better and more honest attempt to examine the scientific literature than, say, an online petition.

        • WorriedfortheCountry

           Yes, all about the propaganda wars.  I’ll stick with science.

          • Ray in VT

            Good.  Then you agree with the scientific community that global warming is happening and that humans are playing a role?

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            Yes but the amount of human caused warming is not clear and it certainly isn’t clear that it is an reason for concern.  More importantly, it isn’t clear that reducing CO2 emissions will have any beneficial effect.  However, we do know the human costs of some of the radical proposals could be devastating.

          • MadMarkTheCodeWarrior

            And Katrina and Sandy demonstrate the cost of doing nothing but argue about it.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

             Even warmist climate scientists don’t have the gall to blame Sandy and Katrina on climate change.

            Tom had a hurricane expert on right after Sandy and Tom tried his best to get him to tie Sandy to climate change –  he wouldn’t go there because the science doesn’t support it.

          • MadMarkTheCodeWarrior

            Do I have to spell it out for you?
            Warmer water equals more frequent and stronger storms.
            Regardless of what caused those two storms, the damage and expense of recovery they caused demonstrate the risk posed by an increase in storm activity driven by climate change.

          • sickofthechit

             Yeah, right!  Cleaner Air and Water would be devastating!

          • Gregg Smith

            I want dirty air! I want dirty water!

          • Don_B1

            The IEC, a rather staid agency, in 2011 stated in a study report:

            “Delaying action is a false economy: for every $1 of investment in cleaner technology that is avoided in the power sector before 2020, an additional $4.30 would need to be spent after 2020 to compensate for the increased emissions.”

            See:

            http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/12/25/1376141/the-ghost-of-climate-yet-to-come-2/

            for references to that and other reasons that delaying cutting CO2 emissions will be a false economic choice.

          • Don_B1

            What, the totally debunked “science” that can be found in “Conservapedia”?

      • Don_B1

        Are you actually saying that all public (popular) opinion surveys are farces?

        It certainly is true that Rasmussen and, notably, Gallop polls for the last presidential election could be so termed, but there are others that do capture public opinion.

        But when the public expresses an opinion that disagrees with the result you want, it is the poll that is a farce, not that the opinion is not what you wish it was?

        Conservatives do not react well to this, but you might prove to be an exception (there are some):

        http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/05/inside-the-political-brain/256483/

        and

        http://www.salon.com/2012/04/02/inside_the_republican_brain/singleton/

        plus

        http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/8591-the-republican-brain-on-the-republican-brain

        and

        http://theragblog.blogspot.com/2012/05/rag-radio-thorne-webb-dreyer-chris.html

        But, as Chris Mooney says on initial results from the response to his latest book:

        “So far, it doesn’t look very good for the theory that conservatives want to learn more about the growing body of research on conservatism.”

        Which, of course, means that you will continue to spout nonsense as you (and other similar-minded persons) have done here today.

    • TomK_in_Boston

      It shows how screwed we are when you need a “review” to say the obvious.

  • Gregg Smith

    The email dump clearly shows the deceit from the Obama administration regarding Benghazi. However, they released only the communications starting 3 days after the attack. 

    The talking points said the attack on the Libyan consulate was inspired by the protest in Cairo over a silly video. It turns out the Cairo riot was not about the video either. It was a celebration of 9/11. Duh. Mohammed al Zawahiri even tweeted about it.  

    https://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/cia-warned-jihadist-threat-cairo-embassy_724570.html?nopager=1

    • Gregg Smith

      Anyone want to touch this? Anyone?

      • jefe68

        Why bother. You have already made up your mind. Your act is tiring.

        • Gregg Smith

          Are you still clinging to the notion in your mind that the video was significant in anyway compared to Al Qaeda and their associates? I can see why, ideology. 

  • Ray in VT

    Brown v. Board of Education was handed down 59 years ago today.  Other steps had previously been taken that were chipping away at segregation in America, but Brown really took things a large step further.  Little Rock was only 3 years later.

    • donniethebrasco

       The liberals in Massachusetts live in their “almost white only” suburbs and make education systems to keep the underclass in their place by putting substandard rules and choking schools with idiot producing curriculum and special ed requirements that burn budgets.

      Liberal policies encourage the poor to stay in their place and out of the suburbs of Wellesley, Weston, etc.  Lack of school choice in cities supported by teacher unions and Deval Patrick encourage maintenance of status quo.

  • Ray in VT

    Minnesota became the 12th state to legalize gay marriage, quickly following upon the heels of Rhode Island and Delaware, but these moves haven’t seemed to get a whole lot of coverage.

  • OnPointComments

    “IRS Targeting of Conservative Groups” hearing on C-Span2 now.  It’s started with “I don’t recall” in answer to questions.

    • WorriedfortheCountry

      “I don’t recall”
      Where have I heard that before?

      • Ray in VT

        I don’t recall.  ;)

      • sickofthechit

         I certainly hope you are referring to Bush/Cheney’s former attorney general Roberto Gonzalaez.  My memory says he should be most famous for it.

    • OnPointComments

      There is an abundance of irony in having Rep. Charles Rangel question anyone about tax improprieties.

    • OnPointComments

      I agree with the article written by Kilberley Strassel in the WSJ:  The bureaucrats at the Internal Revenue Service did exactly what the president said was the right and honorable thing to do.
       
      Excerpt:

      Mr. Obama didn’t need to pick up the phone. All he needed to do was exactly what he did do, in full view, for three years: Publicly suggest that conservative political groups were engaged in nefarious deeds; publicly call out by name political opponents whom he’d like to see harassed; and publicly have his party pressure the IRS to take action. 
       
      According to Mr. Obama, he is “outraged” and “angry” that the IRS looked into the very groups and individuals that he spent years claiming were shady, undemocratic, even lawbreaking. After all, he expects the IRS to “operate with absolute integrity.” Even when he does not. 
       
      http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324767004578487332636180800.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

        It’s nice to know that the poor, ignored WSJ editorial pages can be click-pimped in this space. I mean, they don’t have their own TV show, none of their number are regular panelists for the Sunday gasbags.

        If it weren’t for this, how would anyone know what the WSJ OpEd page thought?

        I mean, besides ringing up every article which said “Clinton” + “scandal” and replacing it with “Obama”?

        • notafeminista

          The list of sources you won’t accept is long.

          The list of sources you will accept is absent.  Why are you so unwilling to share?

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

            Because I won’t waste my time with you.

          • notafeminista

            And yet you keep responding to me.

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

            *Yawn*

            This isn’t real life. In real life you’d find yourself being ignored by people who can be seen ignoring you, and can’t say “Oooh, I got that person good!”

  • nj_v2

    Jackassery Report

    Special two-week, Small Penis Gun Club/Gun Nutter?Oh-My-God-These-SIck-F’ing-People-Are-Totally-F’ing-Out-of-Their-F’ing-Minds Edition:

    http://www.commondreams.org/further/2013/05/08-0

    Guns Are Fun

    Another kid shot himself and died. This one was three. The same age as the kid crowned the youngest lifetime member by the NRA at their convention this weekend. The convention where its new, Confederate-themed, supremely wacko president proclaimed attendees “fighters for freedom,” where a “Youth Day” beckoned kids to “share the excitement” of its nine acres of slick blood-and-guts-stuff, where a Home Defense Concepts speaker suggested that listeners, wussy “emotional pushback” notwithstanding, keep their guns in their kids’ closets ’cause that would make everyone safest and what could possibly go wrong and WTF is wrong with these people?

    http://thepoliticalcarnival.net/2013/05/04/video-nra-convention-speaker-advises-parents-to-store-guns-in-kids-rooms/

    VIDEO: NRA convention speaker advises parents to store guns in kids’ rooms

    At a “Home Defense Concepts” seminar offered at the NRA’s Annual Meeting, Rob Pincus, who owns the popular firearm instruction company I.C.E. Training, said this, and yes, he actually got laughs:

    How about putting a gun in a safe in your kids’ room? Good idea or bad idea? We have an emotional push back to that.

    Here’s my position on this: If you’re worried that your kid is going to try to break into the safe that is in their bedroom with a gun in it, you have bigger problems than home defense. [Laughter]

    And if you think that the kid who’s going to try to break into the safe because it’s in their room isn’t sneaking into your room to try to break into stuff, you’re naive and you have bigger problems than this. [Laughter]

    http://thepoliticalcarnival.net/2013/05/03/hey-moms-n-dads-need-a-gun-gift-for-your-tot-then-the-nra-conference-is-for-you/
    Hey moms ‘n’ dads! Need a gun gift for your tot? Then the NRA Conference is for you!

    Hey chums! Remember this post from back in January? Of course you do! Hey Moms ‘n’ Dads! NRA has a shooting game app for your kiddies – as young as four! – with targets in the shape of coffins!

    Miss those days? Wish your little cherubs had something risky deadly insanely irresistible to keep their little hands busy and their little minds on killing?

    Well, turn that frown upside down, because the National Rifle Association is having a Big Event! And at the Big Event, you can find everything from a magazine cover targeting “young shooters” to pictures of adorable kiddies with guns in a piece about “Project Appleseed,” a program to teach little ones to use guns all around this big ol’ shoot ‘em up country of ours!

    Why, there’s even something for sweet, innocent infants! Official NRA tees and bibs! No worries! They won’t be sweet and innocent for long, not if the NRA can help it!

    And before you can even ask, YES, folks, they DO have pink rifles, just like you saw here and here! You really think they’d forget those? No way! They’ve got you covered! (In more ways than one)

    http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/2-year-old-fatally-shoots-himself-in-texas

    2-Year-Old Fatally Shoots Himself In Texas

    A 2-year-old boy died Wednesday after accidentally shooting himself in the head in the Texas town of Corsicana, the Associated Press reported.

    The child reportedly found a handgun in a bedroom while his father was in another room.

    This came a day after a Florida 3-year-old fatally shot himself with a gun belonging to his uncle, and a week after a 2-year-old girl in Kentucky died after reports that her 5-year-old brother accidentally shot her in the chest. 

    http://blog.sfgate.com/morford/2013/05/07/nine-amazing-truths/

    The NRA is the new Christian right

    Remember that shrill, fundamentalist, God-fearing, adorably insane Christian coalition that somehow elected Bush to two miserable terms, then self-imolated in a cavalcade of confusion and homophobia? Behold, it hath re-emerged! It is now tinier, angrier, far more paranoid, licks AR-15 semi-automatics like popsicles and gathers itself into sweltering Texas convention centers packed like canned lard with panicky, overweight white guys who cheer Glenn Beck’s sweaty tears and give standing ovations to Sarah Palin. Welcome back, right-wing fearclumps! My how you’ve shrunk. And God, you look awful.

    The NRA is also a twitchy clown car of paranoia and failure

    This much we know: Any event where Sarah Palin still gets a standing ovation, where not a single respected celebrity, politician, spiritual leader or intellectual pundit would ever dare show his face, where they want to arm children and compare Michael Bloomberg to a Nazi, these are surefire signs you’re among the most lost and desperate in America.

    http://thepoliticalcarnival.net/2013/05/08/hey-kids-cold-outside-nra-childrens-magazine-says-you-should-build-shooting-ranges-inside-your-house/

    Hey kids! COld outside? NRA children’s magazine says you should build shooting ranges inside your house!

    VIDEO: Boy, 16, fired gun, then killed by cops: “He was bipolar, depressed.” So why did he have access to a weapon?

    VIDEO: NRA convention speaker advises parents to store guns in kids’ rooms

    Five-year-old boy shot and killed his two-year-old sister with his favorite birthday present ever – a rifle

     ▪ VIDEO: Kill, baby, kill. No kidding, this is an ad for baby’s first rifle.

    “My 4 1/2 year old daughter thought the ‘pink one’ was far superior…”

    Hey moms ‘n’ dads! Need a gun gift for your tot? Then the NRA Conference is for you!

    VIDEO: “We bought an assault rifle, or an Uzi, in a Babies R Us parking lot.”

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/08/neil-heslin-smeared-connecticut-carry_n_3240591.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

    Neil Heslin Smeared By Connecticut Carry Gun Lobbying Group

    WASHINGTON — A Connecticut gun lobbying group on Wednesday personally attacked the father of a Sandy Hook school massacre victim, accusing him of “profitting off of the tragedy” and saying a decade-old drug arrest makes him a “poster boy” for background check ineffectiveness.…

    • Ray in VT

      Any news on Ted Nugent?  Is he dead or in jail?

    • Gregg Smith

      Do you have anything on the study that says Republican men have bigger biceps?

      • nj_v2

        Greggg thinks little kids shooting themselves, facilitated by his right-wing pals is something to joke about.

        • Gregg Smith

          Please don’t tell me what I think.

        • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

          Please report the number of dead in Chicago. Only then will I believe that you care about dead children.

          http://crimeinchicago.blogspot.com/

      • MrNutso

        If they keep doing that they’ll go blind.

        • Gregg Smith

          Okay, that’s funny.

      • WorriedfortheCountry

         They think you are joking. LOL

    • donniethebrasco

       You just reminded me.  I need to go out and buy a gun today.

      Thanks

      • jefe68

        Inane troll.

      • 1Brett1

        You’ll have to go online or to a gun show, as you’ll not pass a background check.

  • TomK_in_Boston

    Hey, anyone remember the deficit? The big bad monster that was going to devour us? Guess not. Seems it’s falling fast, 

    “New figures from the Congressional Budget Office show this year’s deficit on track to total $642 billion, down from a forecast of $850 billion three months ago.”

    and longer term forecasts are now in the “no problem” zone – which really shows the stupidity of long term econ forecasts.

    Looks like it really was a bogeyman used by the oligarchs in their never ending class war, which was obvious to some of us.

    • MadMarkTheCodeWarrior

      Politics attracts the greedy, the power hungry, corrupt and inspired ( deluded and grounded ) alike. Go figure that truth and reality have little room in Washington!

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

      Lemme see, that goes on the list with “Obama’s approval ratings” as “measurables I can guess are good for Democrats simply because the media ignores them”.

    • WorriedfortheCountry

       Certainly this is a good trend but it is still too high.  Unemployment and underemployment is also still too high.

      • sickofthechit

         Maybe if the workers getting overtime would give it up then those without jobs would have a better chance.

    • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

      AGW is the bogeyman used by the oligarchs in their never ending class war, which was obvious to some of us.

    • Gregg Smith

      It’s the debt that will devour us and Obamacare that will put the nail in the coffin.

      • sickofthechit

         The Affordable HealthCare Act was a meager attempt to bend the cost curve of spiraling health care costs that have been threatening our long range economy for several decades.  Their mistake was in not starting with a “Wellness Care Model” as their first step.  Having 30 to 40 or more million uninsured in this country will be a pox on all our houses eventually.

      • TomK_in_Boston

        LOL, I can count on you, Gregg.

        http://research.stlouisfed.org/fredgraph.png?g=4bT

        actually what this shows is that if the debt comes down enough we have a recession. Why do you want that?

  • toc1234

    let’s see if Tom can neatly wrap up the AP, Benghazi and the IRS scandals in under 8 minutes. 

    moving on people , no real story here… didn’t you hear jay Carney??

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

      Just funny how “a series of potential scandals” seems to dominate the press’ groupthink the way so many real ones don’t when the President isn’t a Democrat.

      Now if you’ll excuse me, time to put on my Greatest Fluffs mixtape from the 90s. Up first, the “White House Christmas Card List”.

      • MrNutso

        Don’t forget haircutgate.

      • donniethebrasco

         Are you saying that the press is a tool of the right?

        I guess that “warm feeling” that Chris Matthews had was “right wing propaganda.”

        You are completely right.

        Obama is criticizing the IRS, but he is being pressured by the right wing press.

        • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

          Dude, don’t even begin listing Tweety’s mancrushes as a “that proves Tweety’s liberal”. You’ll lose, badly.

          Time to see if the “manliness of Fred Thompson’s Aqua Velva and cigar smoke” still lingers in the air at MSNBC.

  • donniethebrasco

    I think that there are more people that get paid to end poverty in the US than there are people living in poverty.

    I think that there are more guests on this show than listeners.

    • MrNutso

      LOL.  I almost forgot to start the stream.

  • toc1234

    Tom, perhaps have Kim Strassel of wsj on to discuss the 4 audits of Frank VanderSloot??

  • rexhenry

    John Boehner wants to know who’s going to jail? REALLY? Wall Street brings down the financial markets and makes a ton off of it, and he’s mad when political groups are scrutinized over taxes?

    This is a valid argument, right?

    • donniethebrasco

       Timothy Geithner bailed out Goldman Sachs to protect his Non-Qualified Deferred Compensation.

      If Goldman had to declare bankruptcy, Geither would have been out $$$$.

    • donniethebrasco

       The SEC is underfunded by both parties.

      It is also full of paper pushing lawyers with no understanding of finance.

      • OnPointComments

        If the SEC employees have time to surf porn sites all day, as was reported, and no one gets fired for doing it, I find it hard to believe that the agency is underfunded.

  • http://www.facebook.com/betsey.wolfson Betsey Wolfson

    The IRS story is small potatoes.
    I am outraged that prisoners have been held at Guantanamo for ten years with no hope of a trial.

    • WorriedfortheCountry

      Ever been audited Betsey?
      The IRS corruption isn’t ‘small potatoes’.

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

        Which Tea Party groups are getting audited?

        Whomever they are, they can get in line behind the NAACP, Greenpeace, and a church in Pasadena which had the nerve to have an anti-war sermon in 2004.

        And I remember a ton of pro-Bush pulpit politicking which the press ignored then.

    • donniethebrasco

       Why doesn’t Obama do anything about it?  Because he doesn’t want any of those nuts to come after him.

  • Laur5000

    HuffPo just reported that Republicans altered the Benghazi emails. Any thoughts? 

    • MrNutso

      Was just reading about it.  When Is Darrel Issa going to convene an investigation about Republicans lying to the press.

    • donniethebrasco

       Are you saying that if the emails are true, then it is a scandal?

      How about the false flag of the Boston Bombings?  Don’t forget that.

  • http://www.facebook.com/luke.held.9 Luke Held

    Can we please leave the “scandals” alone for a few weeks.  We don’t have enough information on the AP or  IRS “scandals” to really weigh in on them.  This is an example of our 24 hour news cycle keeping us from the real issues of the day. 

    Items like wealth equality, and real crimes of wall street are constantly swept under the rug in coverage of fast burning no story news stories.  Our media needs a little long view.  What happened to Syrian Chemical weapons?  It’s been shown that there is little credibility, and most of the information that was talked about with such heat in previous weeks has forgotten the story.  Come on press, do better!?

    • donniethebrasco

       Sniff, Sniff

      Poor Mr. President.

  • MrNutso

    He just said the magic words.  “We need something to talk about.”  As if the country would fall apart if there wasn’t something in Washington for the media to cover.

  • donniethebrasco

    The AP will affect how the press covers the president.  They will continue to be cowered by the threat of being targeted by the President if they don’t tow the line.

    If they know what’s good for them.

  • http://www.facebook.com/anita.paul.5680 Anita Paul

    Nothing was going to get done anyway. The Republicans have been blocking everything the President does.  Now they have their scandals.  So everyone is happy. 

    • Gregg Smith

      I’m not happy about it at all.

  • MrNutso

    Thank you Jack.

  • donniethebrasco

     Will Jack Beatty try to figure out how “It is Bush’s fault?”

    • Davesix6

      Beatty just tried, but of course you knew that was comming. According to Beatty Obama isn’t responsible for anything.

      • StilllHere

        Then Beatty agrees with Obama and all his apologists.

    • sickofthechit

       A Bush/Cheney/Cheney/bush appointee was in charge I believe.

      • Gregg Smith

        Shulman donated $500 to the DNC in 2004. Miller was an Obama appointee and was the chief counsel. That dog don’t hunt.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

    Tom, how have you mastered setting up a Darrell Issa clip without laughing?

    The high dudgeon of our GOP leaders is funny. The crew who swept everything under the rug when people like me were being accused of terrorism now “wants answers”. The folks who, since Labor Day 2008, have done everything in their power pissing all over the idea of governance, now are intersted in actual governance?

    This is getting in the way of a real, necessary, investigation. If they want to “help”, they can keep the same tone as during the last administration.

  • tncanoeguy

    I’ve talked to tax attorneys who say that it is not unusual for the IRS to give extra scrutiny to new tax-exempt groups.  When a natural disaster like hurricane Sandy happens, many tax-exempt groups pop up.  It seems like we should expect the IRS to give them extra scrutiny.  I can’t say if the the examination of Tea Party groups was politically motivated, but I imagine that many of them sprung up in short order.  

    • donniethebrasco

      Then why is Obama so mad?  Is he part of the conspiracy of the powerful right?

      Is he too busy covering up for 9/11 and the Boston Bombing?

    • Gregg Smith

      There was one applicant that waited years, withdrew the application and submitted a new one with the word “greenhouse” in it. Two weeks later, bingo. Approved.

    • OnPointComments

      If the IRS criteria was to abusively scrutinize any exempt organization application filed by an African-American, would you still be unsure about the motivation of the people who developed the criteria?  If they told you that this criteria wasn’t because of racial prejudice, would you believe them?

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

        NAACP on line one.

  • http://www.facebook.com/anita.paul.5680 Anita Paul

    Could Susan name these so called Leaders calling for Restraint.  Let’s start with Boehner and McConnell.  What is their positions.

  • lorettasig

    The tea party groups are angry that the IRS targeted them because they’re a right wing political group.  Wah!  But when it comes to getting non-profit status, they aren’t a right wing political group. Well…are they or aren’t they?

    • MrNutso

      In fact, if they want to be 501(c)4′s they don’t even need to submit to the IRS for a determination.  They merely need to submit a form with their tax return claim to be non-profit.

    • donniethebrasco

       Have you ever been to a League of Women’s voter meeting?  They are a non-profit with a definite liberal bent.

      Do you listen to NPR?  They are a 401(c) 3.  They are left of Hugo Chavez and Jack Beatty.  They fired Juan Williams for suggesting that the right might have a point.

      • J__o__h__n

        I can’t stand that organization.  They do an awful job running debates for local elections.  They bring in an outside moderator googoo type so they can claim to be impartial but that person doesn’t understand the local issues.  They sanctimoniously claim to be impartial and then advocate for positions which is impossible. 

      • sickofthechit

         The League of Women’s voters does not have a liberal bent, it has an educated bent!

  • http://www.facebook.com/luke.held.9 Luke Held

    Bring on Impeachment!  It’s an important tool that should have been used several times with Bush, and should be used on several issues with Obama.   It’s a word like Communism, it’s not evil, it’s a required check on the president.  The last two presidents have gladly reached far beyond their constitutional powers. 

    If the right were to bring Obama to impeachment proceedings on Benghazi, or just about anything they are making the most noise about, they’d be shown to be the fools they are.  If they broung up the charges on Drone strikes… then they’d have a case.  Clear war crimes have been committed, but war crimes are reserved for losers of war or obscure third world leaders.

  • StilllHere

    It’s laughable to hear the president talk about accountability when the buck stops everywhere but at his desk.

    • toc1234

      Not true – he took full credit for the bin Laden mission… 

  • http://profiles.google.com/rickevans033050 Rick Evans

    Susan Davis has to be kidding if she thinks the A.P. issue with the DOJ resonates with the American people any where near as the IRS handing of conservative tax exemption applications. Most Americans despise the IRS and that hostility is probably ampified coming off April 15. OTOH the press continue to suffer low popularity and the DOJ investigation of A.P. is to try to expose a leaker who exposed  a CIA agent.

    • sickofthechit

       You mean like when the Coward Cheney outed Valerie Plame?

      • Gregg Smith

        It was Richard Armitage and she wasn’t covert. No charges.

  • http://www.facebook.com/kyle.rose Kyle Rose

    I don’t think the speaker is talking about a famous threat. *Imminent*, please. My brain is hurting.

    • J__o__h__n

      How big does a threat need to be to be eminent?

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=745185020 Cory Heaton

    Tom is getting a excited there. That was interesting to hear. 

  • http://www.facebook.com/dane.wolf.3 Dane Wolf

    I wonder if it will now be possible for Americans to stop heaping praise upon U.S. soldiers for no other reason than that they are U.S. soldiers.  Are we really so self-deluded, so jingoistic, so daft to imagine that just because an individual is part of an institution that that individual ipso facto is deserving of all the highest praise commonly associated with that institution?  What does it even mean to be a so-called ‘hero’ anymore, when we treat all who wear a uniform and carry a gun as if they were exceptionally brave, bright, and virtuous?  Clearly there are villains, crooks, and incompetents in every walk of life, so people need to be far more careful about whom they praise and why.

    • donniethebrasco

       Smart idea.

      Go after the troops.

      You are a moron.

      • http://www.facebook.com/dane.wolf.3 Dane Wolf

        QED.  If pointing out that even people in the military break the law, and therefore the general public should not indiscriminately praise the military, is something that makes me a moron, then, logically, you, someone who is apparently not a moron, must believe either that my premise is wrong and that people in the military never do in fact break the law or that, even though military personnel break the law, we should all praise them simply because their association with the military automatically means that they are deserving of adulation. 

        I would be interested to know how a smart fellow like yourself might explain to a moron like me why I should not withhold my praise, for instance, from the sergeant first class, a coordinator for the Army Sexual Assault Prevention Office, who is presently “accused of pandering, abusive sexual contact, assault and maltreatment of subordinates.”  Should I ignore this and other incidents like it?  Or did you get mixed up about which of us is really a moron?

  • Davesix6

    If the IRS were targeting liberal groups, first of all the press would have been invstigating months ago, and once the scandal was surfacing, the left would have been going ape!
    The left would be screaming about the hate filled right and how hate speach from right wing leaders were the true cause of this.

    Funny, how Obama and other left wing leaders on the left making hate filled false accusations of racism, sexism, etc. has nothing to do with the clearly politically motivated discrimination perputrated by the IRS.

    Obviously there is a double standard.

    As to the Press, perhaps if they were attempting to be journalist instead of activists someone would have investigated.

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

      Greenpeace, the NAACP and an Episcopal church in Pasadena say differently, about the Beltway Inbred’s poutrage, and who gives a damn about this in the press.

      They were all audited by the IRS. Let me know when that happens to a Tea Party group.

      • notafeminista

        President Obama was supposed to be better than President Bush.

        theme song from “Lowered Expectations” plays in the background.

        • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

          You sound like the person who needs to talk trash about the guy who stood you up for prom.

          Ever been audited?

          For some reason, I thought not.

        • MadMarkTheCodeWarrior

          It’s not too hard…
          Don’t start two unnecessary wars without raising taxes to pay for them. Don’t pass huge tax cuts to go from tax surpluses to help drive down the debt to creating record debt. Don’t set up operations to engage in large scale torture around the world. Don’t repeat 911. Don’t oversea the run up to the greatest economic collapse since 1929… Wait there’s still time for things to fall apart again thanks to toothless financial reform delivered to us by Comgress and K street… Maybe Obama will not escape the’collatoral damage ‘ from that ticking time bomb.

    • northeaster17

      They have and do target liberal groups. But as long as the a.m. radio crowd can paint themselves victims all is right in the world.

    • hennorama

      Davesix6 – We do not know at this time “If the IRS were targeting liberal groups” or not.

      First of all, the use of the term “targeting” is pejorative. The TIGTA report uses this term only when discussing what their objectives were:

      “The overall objective of this audit was to determine whether allegations were founded that the IRS: 1) targeted specific groups applying for tax-exempt status, 2) delayed processing of targeted groups’ applications, and 3) requested unnecessary information from targeted groups.”

      The TIGTA report (hereafter referred to as “the IG report”) concluded,

      “The IRS used inappropriate criteria that identified for review Tea Party and other organizations applying for tax-exempt status based upon their names or policy positions instead of indications of potential political campaign intervention.” (IG report, page 2)

      Please note the use of the word “identified”, which is not the same as “targeted”.

      Also, again per the IG report, “We did not review the use of other named organizations on the BOLO listing to determine if their use was appropriate.” (IG report, page 6, footnote 16)

      In other words, the IG focused only on the Tea Party and similar named groups, not any others.

      For the full TIGTA report,
      see:http://www.treasury.gov/tigta/auditreports/2013reports/201310053fr.pdf

      One also must note the following from the IRS press release from Wednesday May 15, 2013, titled “Questions and Answers on 501(c) Organizations”:

      “8. What cases were centralized?

      “The TIGTA report reflects that 300 cases were centralized. Approximately 70 of those cases included the name Tea Party. The remaining cases included organizations of all political views. The current number of centralized cases is approximately 470.”

      See:http://www.irs.gov/uac/Newsroom/Questions-and-Answers-on-501(c)-Organizations

    • sickofthechit

       To me, the IRS was not necessarily out of line in making a closer
      examination of the tea party and patriot groups apps.  Their avowed goal
      is to dismantle as much of the government’s authority and taxation
      power.  Of course they should be looked at more closely than others. 
      It’s akin to their being probable cause when the police happen upon the
      results of a crime and a witness to the crime is standing by holding the
      weapon, or the can of spray paint, etc.  They had better check them out
      rather closely or they aren’t doing their jobs. charles a. bowsher

  • donniethebrasco

    The DOJ is opening a criminal investigation into the IRS.  Stop trying to downplay the actions of the IRS.

    They knew about this in 2012 before the election, but didn’t do anything until now.

  • donniethebrasco

    Bush broke the rules too.  So Obama can break the rules.

    It is like little kids on the playground.

  • WorriedfortheCountry

    The Bloomberg dude is missing a big issue.  The DoJ should have made their case before a judge. 

    • OnPointComments

      But if the DOJ had gone before a judge for approval, it might not have been able to do what it really wanted to do.

      • WorriedfortheCountry

         Is that true?  Weren’t they just looking at records?

  • donniethebrasco

    IRS scandal plays to the American People.
    AP scandal plays to the press.

    Piss everyone off, and all you’ll have left are government employees, welfare cheats, limousine liberals and NPR.

  • spirit17of76

    “Teach the Constitution.”  Yeah, right.  Teach it in a very ideological and partisan manner I will bet my bippy.  No evenhanded Constitutional scholars here I’ll wager.

    What we need is CLOSER scrutiny of the eligibility for tax deductions by 501 C4, not giving them more of a pass.

    “Dark money” as Jack says is turning Democracy on its side.  Yes indeed, dark money is our biggest threat.  It very nearly owns or government.

    • donniethebrasco

      That’s why Obama is going after the IRS.

    • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

      Do you know about Common Cause holding $100 a plate dinners to get money out of politics?  

  • MrNutso

    It’s about Presidential power.  It doesn’t matter who is president, liberal, conservative, Republican, Democrat.  The office holder want’s to maintain and expand presidential power.

    • donniethebrasco

       And use the IRS to go after your enemies.

      • MrNutso

        The IRS, FBI, CIA, etc.

  • J__o__h__n

    I’m surprised that Josh Barro was more loyal to allowing the government to destroy privacy and first amendment rights than he is to reflexively claiming Obama was wrong.  His argument doesn’t make sense though.  While it is true that bloggers complicate who is a journalist, the AP most certainly is under any definition.  And the government can prosecute people who leak classified information but they should be required to get a warrant.  He states in defense of his claim that the government can search for this information because the government “gets to subpoena” which makes no sense as he is claiming they don’t need one. 

    • notafeminista

      Why are you surprised? The media has been giving a pass to President Obama since he was Candidate Obama the first time.  This is just par for the course.

  • beeste

    Lord, Move on.org is not a 501.3(c) corporation.  The problem with these “scandals” is the absence of any factual scandal but a rabid media fed on by a childish right wing to deal in innuendo, hearsay and libel.  It’s the responsibility of you in the media to deal in the facts, and dispell all of the ignorance that’s out there.  the REAL scandal is how poorly the media is doing it’s job.

    • donniethebrasco

       From the Moveon.org site:

      Our MoveOn family is made up of a couple of different pieces. MoveOn.org
      Civic Action, a 501(c)(4) nonprofit organization, focuses on education
      and advocacy, as well as on building the progressive movement by
      encouraging and supporting the development of more grassroots leaders.
      MoveOn.org Political Action, a federal PAC, is focused on demonstrating
      MoveOn members’ power at the ballot box and electing candidates who
      reflect our members’ values.

      • beeste

         My bad, they have a 501(c)(4) AND a PAC, so why investigate the 501(c)(4) when they clearly have a PAC to do the politiciizing.  Clearly the IRS employees were either lazy because they were overwhelmed by primarily right wing 501(c)(4) applications or they were malicious… but that’s the story, a few employees screwed up.  There’s no more evidence to connect Obama any more than Ron Paul.

    • donniethebrasco

       STOP LYING.

  • http://www.facebook.com/luke.held.9 Luke Held

    Amen Bill from New Orleans!  Excellent points!

  • Emily311

    I would have a much easier time taking this seriously if the Republicans didn’t cry scandal every time Obama coughed. 

  • Emily311

    What we need is to get rid of Citizens United. The IRS should not have had this job in the first place.

    • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

      What parts of: 
      Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. 
      Do you agree with?

      • J__o__h__n

        extending the rights of citizens to corporations and equating money with speech.  And the Court (even Scalia) said that Congress could regulate disclosing donors. 

        • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

          In this case a corporation is the people peaceably assembled. I know this boggles your mind but corporation doesn’t mean evil bad guys. You should drop some of your socialist inspired preconceived notions they make you an easy mark for corrupt politicians.

          • J__o__h__n

            I didn’t state that all corporations are evil.  I don’t think that they should be considered as a person as far as political speech rights are concerned.  Corporations suposedly only exist to maximize return for shareholders and that is not compatible with the rights and responsibilities of living citizens. 

          • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

            Typically wrong, corporations are formed to do what individuals cannot accomplish singly. The rest of what you said is the drek you have been feed to make you believe that you need a oligarch protecting you. Buddy, they own you and you think they love you.

    • OnPointComments

      Did the free speech that was exercised as a result of the Citizens United decision change your vote?

  • onpoint080

    Isn’t lobbying and trying to influence elections the same thing?  Why parse these words?

    The lobbyists are proponents of issues, both sides, which electoral candidates are ruuning on

    • MrNutso

      Electioneering is about advocating for or against candidates.

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

        Yeah, it’s become a winkwink kind of thing, but that’s how the proverbial officials have been making those proverbial penalty calls.

        At some point, worth it to look at it with the “rules committee”, but not when it’s in the news.

    • http://www.facebook.com/BGHooke Bruce Hooke

      At least on the surface they look like the same thing, but according to the IRS code they are not. Non-profits can “educate” around issues all they want to, and “educating” can look an awful lot like lobbying. Where the IRS draws the line is when lobbying becomes advocating for a particular candidate. There is some logic here. Educating around a particular issue can, at least in theory, pursued any candidate to hold a particular position. But, it gets pretty muddy when a particular position is very strongly associated with one party, and so advocating for that position is effectively the same as advocating for a candidate. This is the problem with the IRS distinction, but that’s not primarily the IRS’s fault, they main fault lies with Congress for how they wrote the laws.

    • donniethebrasco

       MOVE ON . ORG is a 401(c) 4

  • beeste

    Thank you Susan for pointing out that there is no connection between the WH and the IRS on this.   The IRS is a politically insulated organization.  The guy running the show was a Bush appointee.  Bureaucrats… and anyone else… sometimes get out ahead of their skis.  That’s the extent of the story.  Lordie, we wouldn’t even know about the story if the Treasury department (also in the administration) hadn’t launched an investigation and then publicly released it.

    • donniethebrasco

      Then Obama should pursue criminal charges against the IRS people who did what they did and the managers that knew about it and did nothing.

    • OnPointComments

      The investigation was launched because of complaints to the Congress about harrassment of conservative organizations.

      • beeste

         thank you

  • donniethebrasco

    MOVE ON . ORG IS A 501(c)4.

    They are very political (for the left).

    • beeste

       … AND they are ALSO a PAC, which isn’t a social welfare nonprofit.  They have the legal organization to do the politicking. 

      • donniethebrasco

         Why have a 401(c)4 at all?  Why not just be a PAC?

        • sickofthechit

           Because their donors get to remain anonymous!  That is the most important thing for these people, anonymity.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

    In normal times I might agree with the caller (Bill from NOLa?) about the “scandals” sucking all the oxygen out of the room.

    But the right has been in scandal screaming mode for five years minus a summer. The Senate is still in “60 is the new 51″ mode–haven’t you heard? The House has passed fewer bills than any in quite a stretch (and even less encore after encore of the meaningless “RepealObamaCare” number which is playing to a smaller and smaller crowd).

    Two weeks ago, the narratives, the messaging was “if only Obama were nicer to the people dedicated to destroying his Presidency, no matter what else”, things could get done in Washington. Because BothSides, y’know.

    Now it’s “where are those halcyon days of April?”. Seriously?

    Less Beltway, please.

    • William

      Valarie Plame Iraq War? Those are “bumps in the road”, “we have moved on”, “those happened a long time ago”, “what difference does it make?”

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

        How are things in Williamworld?

        Remember when Hillary killed Vince Foster?

        • Gregg Smith

          She didn’t kill him but the Clintons’ shady business shenanigans drove him to suicide…. then Hillary moved the body to gitmo… or something.

  • StilllHere

    Obama’s fingerprints are all over the IRS scandal. He’s taking a lesson from Slick Willy on this one.

    • donniethebrasco

      The question becomes can Obama wipe his fingerprints through appointments to his library or get his connections jobs in the private sector to shut them up.

    • http://www.facebook.com/BGHooke Bruce Hooke

       Explain exactly how his fingerprints are all over this when the key political appointees overseeing the IRS were appointed by George W. Bush. You may desire to blame Obama for this but to do so you need to provide some shred of evidence that there is actually a connection.

  • WorriedfortheCountry

    Jay Carney has a big set of balls to make that statement given that he told the American people in Nov. 2012 and May 2013 that only one word was changed for ‘stylistic’ reasons.

    • sickofthechit

       Get the facts, he said only one word was changed by the Whitehouse.

  • rexhenry

    This tax issue is over groups having to pay taxes others are exempt from, right?

    TAX BREAKS. CONSERVATIVES. BIG SURPRISE.

    • donniethebrasco

       Like MoveOn

    • donniethebrasco

       People voluntarily give their money to 401(c)4s, but Unions force employees to pay them dues to electioneer.

      • StilllHere

        They electioneer when they’re not lining their own pockets.

    • OnPointComments

      The issue is abusively targeting conservative groups.  The IRS has admitted the abuse.  The Treasury Inspector General investigated and issued a report stating that only conservative groups were targeted.  The President is outraged, and you should be too.

      • beeste

         If you are actually “OnPointComments”, shouldn’t you not tell people what to be outraged over?

  • Michiganjf

    The IRS wasn’t just protecting LEGITIMATE 501c groups by making sure that tax law was being followed by 501c applicants….

    … it was also protecting potential 501c donors from being SCAMMED by SHAM 501c groups, which was important, as supposed “tea party” groups were applying for the tax-free status at a rate of 5 to 1 to other groups, following the Citizens United case.

    Citizens United opened the floodgates for SCAM groups to fraudulently take the public for a fortune!!!!

    The IRS should be LAUDED for not being cowed politically by conservative threats, and they should CONTINUE TO NOT BE COWED by Republican fanaticism and zeal to try ANY AND EVERY angle to somehow stain the Obama Presidency, regardless of the merit of their stupidities!

    • donniethebrasco

       By asking what books they read?

      By asking what candidates they might support in the future?

      By asking who would donate and who might donate?

      George Soros is given millions to MoveOn.  But he gets to hide.

      • beeste

         How do you know George Soros didn’t influence the IRS, as opposed to Obama.  Do you have more evidence pointing to Obama?

      • sickofthechit

         What is wrong with those questions?  Were they ashamed of theer books, their positions, their donors?

        If Soros gets to hide, how do you know he gives millions?  Are you a spy?

    • sickofthechit

       Well said!

  • http://www.facebook.com/BGHooke Bruce Hooke

    What I find both sad and worrying for our democracy is that I am pretty sure the reason so many in the Republican base are so up in arms about Benghazi is because of the inflammatory language and outright lies being repeated over and over by right wing radio and TV commentators. When so many can be whipped into a frothing frenzy over an incident that when you look at it closely does not look much different from many similar incidents that have happened under every recent administration, we are in a situation where the right charismatic leader could take this country down very, very bad paths, far more extreme than anything we’ve seen in our history.

    • notafeminista

      You can always hope.

    • StilllHere

      We started down the path 5 years ago.

      • jimino

        Yes, everything was wonderful until that exact year.  Whatever minimal (and that’s being generous)  credibility you might have is utterly destroyed by making such a ridiculous statement.

  • M S

    We haven’t even heard the specific details of the terrorist plot or who was potentially at risk. The fact is, we do have people out there in harm’s way, working in some very ugly places to protect the homeland. There are lives on the line and if the AP reports on something which leads to the outing of one of ours or an asset, it could cost their lives. What would be the harm in the AP holding the story? None. The public does not need to know about every plot disrupted immediately…they already know the government is attempting to protect the country.

    • donniethebrasco

       The AP could have been asked for their records.  If they didn’t comply, a judge could have issued a warrant.

      It was completely done within the Justice Department without any disclosure.

      • M S

        Well, that could have been done, but I’m pretty sure the AP wouldn’t have complied…and besides, it was necessary to find the leak.

      • M S

        I’m not familiar with all the options they had, but in your example, would the judge have given them what they needed to conduct an appropriate investigation? And remember, time is of the essence…and this is a leak you’d want to stop. I think AP wanted a scoop and felt entitled to publish the material regardless of the consequences…I’d like to know what they weighed.

    • http://www.facebook.com/anita.paul.5680 Anita Paul

      Brits had inserted a double agent in to Al-quaeda in Yemen.  Agent discovered a plot to load a bomb on a plane from England to US.  Somehow the plot was foiled.  Either the Brits or US government was able to obtain the bomb and prevent the attack.  The agent was outed.

  • donniethebrasco

    Not much disagreement about the military.  If they supported sexual abuse, they should be punished.

    I also agree with changing the reporting to not follow the chain of command.  It creates difficulty reporting and mistrust of the process.

    I don’t know who would disagree about the problem and the proposed changes.

    • StilllHere

      Obama needs to get his military under control.  Staying silent and doing nothing are not working.

  • spirit17of76

    More bogus scandals:Four people died in Benghazi.  Over 3000 died in 9/11.Criticism of Bush by Republicans – and by Dems – was missing in action.  This despite warnings that Bin Laden was planning attacks on U.S. soil in that time frame, and abundant hints that the twin towers were vulnerable.For goodness sakes, the Pentagon was not even properly defended after the NYC attacks.What is UP with all of that??

    • donniethebrasco

       Who thought that terrorists would fly airplanes into buildings?

      They did it with under 20 people who were willing to die.

      You should be mad at the radical Islamist who kept their mouths shut.

      • MrNutso

        I did.  How hard is it to conceive of something like that?

        • Gregg Smith

          Yes, Bush should have grounded the airlines his first day in office.

          • notafeminista

            I prefer the “President Bush should have built the impentrable bubble over the entire country his first day in office” argument ;) well done!

    • StilllHere

      “What difference does it make?”

    • notafeminista

      Your guy won.

      • StilllHere

        and America lost.

  • StilllHere

    The groups targeted by Obama’s IRS should have a public platform on which to state their grievances and mistreatment at the hands of the Obama administration.  Parading these groups through public Congressional hearings seems appropriate and a valuable teaching moment for all US citizens.

    • hennorama

      StilllHere – yes, yes, we need more “parades” through Congressional hearings. This is an excellent idea.

      As to “a public platform” – why not “parade” on Fox News, TheDimness.com, DullLisa.com and various other public platforms without inflicting the “parade” on Congress?

      After all, Congress has much more pressing things to waste its time on, like another vote to repeal Obamacare, for example.

      Keep those great ideas coming!

      • J__o__h__n

        The hearings might take time away from more pointless votes against Obamacare. 

        • hennorama

          J__o__h__n – either way, it would be more “bread and circuses”.

          Or, per the original suggestion, “bread and parades”.

  • anamaria23

    Are there no Republicans working in  lower level IRS? Why would they not expose the bad actors early on and demand action?
    Were only Democratic Party employees engaging in inappropriate focusing?   Is the IRS  a Deomcratic only staffed place?
    I do hope that there is public questioning of the employees involved? 

    • WorriedfortheCountry

       All valid questions.

      I saw this in HuffPO that claims the IRS is loaded with Dems and Obama supporters (based on public data).

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/the-center-for-public-integrity/irs-employees-back-obama_b_3278655.html

      • hennorama

        WorriedfortheCountry – the HuffPo article is simply a repeat (as is fairly typical of HuffPo) of an original article from The Center for Public Integrity.

        (See:http://www.publicintegrity.org/2013/05/14/12661/irs-employees-back-obama-democrats)

        The article did NOT “claim the IRS is loaded with Dems and Obama supporters”. Rather, it details the very limited publicly available information about campaign donations. This information does not identify the donors’ political affiliations or registrations.

        Also, as the article noted,

        “Overall, rank-and-file IRS employees donated more than $840,000 to federal candidates and committees from 1989 to 2012, according to the Center’s analysis. Democrats and liberal-leaning organizations received about two-thirds of this sum.

        “While GOP-aligned groups and candidates received the remainder, during some election cycles, such as the 2002 midterms and the 2010 midterms, Republicans and conservative-leaning organizations achieved near-parity.”

        AND

        “Both the Democratic National Committee and Republican National Committee have also received notable support from IRS employees, with each collecting about $45,000 over the years.”

        AND

        “Federal campaign finance law requires all individuals who donate more than $200 to a political group or candidate to list their employer and occupation. These filings may understate the donations of individuals who give less than the reporting threshold or who do not clearly identify the IRS as their employer.”

        • notafeminista

          Center for Public Integrity receives funding from the Open Society Institute, Bill Moyers and his Schumann Institute and Christiane Amanpour and Arianna Huffington do or did sit on its board. Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting refer to CPI as progressive.

          • Gregg Smith

            Context is key.

          • notafeminista

            Timing doesn’t hurt either.

          • hennorama

            notafeminista – please note that WorriedfortheCountry began this thread with the HuffPo article. I merely pointed out that CPI was the originator.

            Aside from that, do you have an actual point?

          • notafeminista

            H’orama TY for your response. 

             Merely that HuffPo (progressive in itself) used a progressive source.  Context really is key.

          • hennorama

            notafeminista – are you making an objection?

            What I mean is, do you object to or dispute the information contained in the article?

            Or do you object to WftC’s use of HuffPo as a source?

            Or do you object to my pointing out that CPI was the article’s originator?

            Or do you object to the existence and/or activities of HuffPo?

            Or do you object to the existence and/or activities of CPI and/or the various parties you detail in your post?

          • notafeminista

            H’orama I understood what you meant.  I’m merely illuminating the original source.  Do you object to that?

    • OnPointComments

      There are many news articles about the political donations of IRS employees.  Their donations are made disproportionately to Democrats.
       
      “The Cincinnati office where the political targeting took place is much more partisan, judging by FEC filings. More than 75 percent of the campaign contributions from that office in the past three elections went to Democrats. In 2012, every donation traceable to employees at that office went to either President Obama or liberal Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio.”
       
      http://washingtonexaminer.com/tim-carney-the-irs-is-deeply-political-and-very-democratic/article/2529758

    • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

      Group think dominates bureaucracies.  That is their prime weakness.

      • anamaria23

        So, it is possible that not only did Democratic staffers  commit unlawful acts, they are involved in a cover up also.

        • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

          Please restate I missed your point.

  • marjkramer

    I am struck at the contrast between the way the government pursued criminal activity in the 2008 financial meltdown that damaged so many people and this issue of the IRS non profit status, of minor importance relatively. Now I hear of firings, of  calls for jail time (by Republicans of course),,  none of the financiers are in prison!!  Why not,  instead they are top advisors.  That is not right. 

    • StilllHere

      What criminal activity?  Please cite specific instances.

    • OnPointComments

      Is Jon Corzine, VP Biden’s advisor for the economy, in jail?

    • WorriedfortheCountry

      Using government power for political gain is tyranny. Fighting against this tyranny is the primary reason our nation was founded.

      Ask Obama’s DoJ why no bankers have been jailed or even prosecuted.  They didn’t even end ‘too big to fail’ or restore the Glass-Steagall Act as part of the Dodd-Frank debacle.

  • donniethebrasco

    MOVEON . ORG is a 401(c) 4

    • hennorama

      Yeah, except no, it is not.

      “MoveOn.org Civic Action is a 501(c)(4) organization which primarily focuses on nonpartisan education and advocacy on important national issues. MoveOn.org Political Action is a federal political committee which primarily helps members elect candidates who reflect our values through a variety of activities aimed at influencing the outcome of the next election. MoveOn.org Political Action and MoveOn.org Civic Action are separate organizations.”

      http://front.moveon.org/

      • OnPointComments

        Can you say MoveON is nonpartisan with a straight face?

        • Ray in VT

          Can you say the same for the Heritage Foundation, which, I believe, has the same status.  Nonpartisan and nonideological are two different things.

        • hennorama

          OPC – I made and make no comment about MoveOn.org or their activities. I simply quoted directly from their website, to demonstrate that donniethebrasco’s post was inaccurate.

          Accuracy is important, wouldn’t you agree?

      • notafeminista

        Perception is reality.

        • Ray in VT

          No, reality is reality.  Perception is how we interpret reality, and that can be distorted through the lens of belief.

          • notafeminista

            Why do I keep thinking of “Lowered Expectations”..?

          • Ray in VT

            Because a good sketch, like a good song, gets stuck in your head.

          • hennorama

            Apologies in advance for the earbug:

            “It’s a small world after all …”

          • notafeminista

            That’s one reason…

        • hennorama

          notafeminista – TY for your non sequitur.

          http://popular-pics.com/PPImages/perception-Vs-Reality.jpg

      • Gregg Smith

        They’re political as hell but not as bad as Media Matters which is a 501 (c) 3.

        • Ray in VT

          Media Matters does a great job of picking out the best nutty right wing quotes and pointing readers to better sources.  They are highly informative and entertaining.  It’s not like they’re out there smearing innocent college kids as terrorists or something.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

             They are also a prime source for the phony ‘Pulitzer’ prize winning fact checkers used by the media spin machine.

          • Ray in VT

            But they can’t hold a candle to the main propoents of false, discredited or mispresented information, such as talk radio or some of the great pundits on outlets such as Fox.  Those sources will keep spinning their “facts” no matter what the reality is.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            Sure.  But if we really want “false, discredited or misrepresented information” we always have Harry Reid.

          • Ray in VT

            Or the GOP and their incorrectly quoted emails.

          • Gregg Smith

            Or Susan Rice, Hillary and Obama.

          • Ray in VT

            Or George Bush, or Dick Chney, or Mitt Romney.

          • Gregg Smith

            None of them lied.

          • Ray in VT

            Got it.  Only Democrats or liberals lie.  Just more open and honest debate.  Just truly sad.

          • Gregg Smith

            That’s crazy, no one said that. 

          • jefe68

            Which is why Gregg, the Rush supporter, does not like them.

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

            Now take that back, or I’ll call you “A slut, a prostitute”!

        • hennorama

          Gregg Smith – as I wrote to OPC “I made and make no comment about MoveOn.org or their activities. I simply quoted directly from their website, to demonstrate that donniethebrasco’s post was inaccurate.

          Accuracy is important, wouldn’t you agree?”

          • Gregg Smith

            My comment was accurate and yes it is important.

  • WorriedfortheCountry

    The IRS official who ran the department that targeted Tea Party groups received a $103K bonus for her efforts.  Get this.  She is now running the group that oversees the IRS management of Obamacare.

    Coincidence?

    Also, only the President has the authority to approve such large bonuses. Maybe he needs to be asked to justify the reason for these bonuses.

    • StilllHere

      The connection is Obama.  Again, it’ll turn out he directed this action himself.

      • jefe68

        Wow, your such a soothsayer. 
        Maybe you should also read some more tea leaves to wind this up.

  • sickofthechit

    To me, the IRS was not necessarily out of line in making a closer examination of the tea party and patriot groups apps.  Their avowed goal is to dismantle as much of the government’s authority and taxation power.  Of course they should be looked at more closely than others.  It’s akin to their being probable cause when the police happen upon the results of a crime and a witness to the crime is standing by holding the weapon, or the can of spray paint, etc.  They had better check them out rather closely or they aren’t doing their jobs. charles a. bowsher

    • OnPointComments

      So, you believe freedom of speech should not apply to some groups.  Gotcha.

      • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

        Yep, they always do.

      • sickofthechit

        How does examining an organizations application, especially ones with a negative  agenda towards the government hamper their freedom of speech?

        • OnPointComments

          It doesn’t take much imagination to see how the power of the IRS could be used to suppress free speech. 

  • OnPointComments

    The country is fortunate that Acting IRS Commissioner Steven Miller is on his way out.  He is testifying right now (CSpan2) about the IRS targeting of conservative groups.  He has stated time and again that he either doesn’t know or is unaware of what was happening in the IRS.

    • Gregg Smith

      That’s what Holder said about the AP thing. Obama is playing dumb too. 

      • notafeminista

        Might be all they have left.  2016 is a long time away.

        • Gregg Smith

          Maybe it’s all they ever had.

  • WorriedfortheCountry

    We need an independent investigation of the IRS scandal by a professional investigator — not the DoJ or the clowns in Congress.

    • OnPointComments

      I agree.  I’m listening to the current testimony on CSPAN2 about IRS targeting of conservative groups, and there are examples of the IRS (this time in California, not Cincinnati) asking a group for the subject of their prayers.  The IRS problem appears to be pervasive throughout the organization.

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

      Hey, let’s take a page from the right-wing playbook, and only do that the next time the GOP is in the White House.

      (Cue the “There Are No Republicans Here” brigade.)

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1393701660 Thomas J Howard

    What Republicans are omitting in their talking points is the Head of the IRS at the time of this abuse is a member of the GOP and was appointed by George W. Bush.  That means a REPUBLICAN was heading the IRS when it was targeting Tea Party groups – not a democrat – no an appointee of this administration.

    • WorriedfortheCountry

      Wrong.  Shulman was appointed by Bush but he is a DEMOCRAT.

      • Ray in VT

        I asked you yesterday for a source on that.  He’s contributed to Democratic causes, but does that mean that he is a Democrat?  Maybe, but maybe not.

        • WorriedfortheCountry

          Is Reuters good enough?

          “Politically, the IRS chief needs bipartisan
          support in Congress to be confirmed. Former IRS commissioner Shulman was
          a Democrat appointed by Republican President George W. Bush.”http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/16/us-usa-irs-chief-idUSBRE94F19D20130516

          • Ray in VT

            Yes.  I didn’t find that yesterday.  I would like to know, though, what their source is.  Was he registered as such somewhere, or is that label based upon donations?

          • WorriedfortheCountry

             Maybe his affiliation was touted when Bush appointed just like Ray LaHood’s (R) affiliation was touted when Obama appointed him?  Token bipartisan appointments are usually promoted as part of the ‘game’.

          • Gregg Smith

            Hagel is another.

          • Ray in VT

            I don’t know.  I have some faith that often our leaders look for people whom they think will do well in a given job regardless of party.  John McHugh was named Secretary of the Army by the President, and he’s a Republican.  Hopefully he has done a good job.  I haven’t heard that he hasn’t.

    • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

      Why didn’t Romney… why didn’t the Republicans… root out these Obama scandals before the last election?

      4. Obama’s prime target was the Tea Party (which had crushed him in the 2010 midterms), and the establishment Republicans were at odds with the Tea Party movement. I’m not saying I believe this, but sober reflection tells us we need to redraw the line between paranoia and vigilance. The theory is that establishment Republicans appreciated the suppression of the Tea Party.

      http://www.althouse.blogspot.com/2013/05/why-didnt-romney-why-didnt-republicans.html

  • Gregg Smith

    Hopefully this is a bipartisan, uncontroversial comment. A friend of mine has started a unique charity where musicians can write songs for causes. It’s a little complicated but I think it’s a great idea. I wanted to pass it along. Here’s the site:

    http://www.doinggoodnetwork.com/

    • J__o__h__n

      If any of the lyrics contain the words “tea party” or “patriot,” I’m calling the IRS. 

      • Gregg Smith

        I have been warned.

  • notafeminista

    Obviously there was a bit of something I may have missed — six Democrat senators sent letters to the IRS asking them to investigate specific groups?  Anyone else?

    • OnPointComments

      “IRS Targeting Pushed By Democrats Aided Obama Campaign”
      http://news.investors.com/ibd-

      Excerpt:
      Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., on July 27, 2012, wrote IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman to investigate 12 conservative groups he accused of violating their tax-exempt status and engaging in coordinated political activity.

      Democratic Sens. Jeanne Shaheen, New Hampshire; Tom Udall, New Mexico; and Al Franken, Minnesota; sent a similar letter to Shulman in February 2012, asking the IRS to investigate tax-exempt groups they believed were engaged in political activities. So did retiring Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., in 2010 and House Democrats in 2012, the Atlantic reported Monday.

      Pro Publica, a liberal investigative news operation, received copies of applications from 31 conservative nonprofits from the IRS in November 2012, including nine that had not yet been approved and thus were not supposed to be made public.

      • OnPointComments

        These are facts from as stated in an Investors Business Daily editorial.  The facts are undisputed.

        • notafeminista

          Thank you – I misplaced my response.  See above.

        • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

          “Facts as stated in an editorial.”

          That’s too funny!

          If you scribbled for a penny-ante college newspaper (as did many of us back when the internet didn’t exist), your chief might say “Then source the facts”.

      • hennorama

        OPC – TY for limiting the excerpted remarks to the facts, and omitting the opinion portion.

        Well done.

      • hennorama

        OPC – one must note that ProPublica states in a recent post on their website: 

        See:http://www.propublica.org/article/irs-office-that-targeted-tea-party-also-disclosed-confidential-docs

        “In response to a request for the applications for 67 different nonprofits last November, the Cincinnati office of the IRS sent ProPublica applications or documentation for 31 groups. Nine of those applications had not yet been approved—meaning they were not supposed to be made public. (We made six of those public, after redacting their financial information, deeming that they were newsworthy.)”

        AND later in the ProPublica post:

        “On Nov. 15, 2012, ProPublica requested the applications of 67 nonprofits, all of which had spent money on the 2012 elections. (Because no social welfare groups with Tea Party in their names spent money on the election, ProPublica did not at that point request their applications. We had requested the Tea Party applications earlier, after the groups first complained about being singled out by the IRS. In response, the IRS said it could find no record of the tax-exempt
        status of those groups — typically how it responds to requests for unapproved applications.)

        “Just 13 days after ProPublica sent in its request, the IRS responded with the documents on 31 social welfare groups.”

        AND, later in the ProPublica post:

        “After receiving the unapproved applications, ProPublica tried to determine why they had been sent. In emails, IRS spokespeople said ProPublica shouldn’t have received them.

        “It has come to our attention that you are in receipt of application materials of organizations that have not been recognized by the IRS as tax-exempt,” wrote one spokeswoman, Michelle Eldridge. She cited a law saying that publishing unauthorized returns or return information was a felony punishable by a fine of up to $5,000 and imprisonment of up to five years, or both.

        “In response, ProPublica’s then-general manager and now president, Richard Tofel, said, “ProPublica believes that the information we are publishing is not barred by the statute cited by the IRS, and it is clear to us that there is a strong First Amendment interest in its publication.”

        “ProPublica also redacted parts of the application to omit financial information.”

        [EDIT/ADD]: Note that ProPublica requested the applications on Nov. 15, 2012, well after the election was over.

        • OnPointComments

          I wonder if the IRS started an investigation of who sent the unauthorized materials.  I bet they didn’t.

          • hennorama

            OPC – TY for your response (and apologies if the original link to ProPublica in my post was problematic – it has been corrected).

            The ProPublica article indicates:

            “The IRS cover letter sent with the documents was from the Cincinnati office, and signed by Cindy Thomas, listed as the manager for Exempt Organizations Determinations, whom a biography for a Cincinnati Bar Association meeting in January says has worked for the IRS for 35 years. (Thomas often signed the cover letters of responses to ProPublica requests.) The cover letter listed an IRS employee named Sophia Brown as the person to contact for more information about the records. We tried to contact both Thomas and Brown today but were unable to reach them.”

            see:http://www.propublica.org/article/irs-office-that-targeted-tea-party-also-disclosed-confidential-docs

          • notafeminista

            It would have made sense to do so.

      • hennorama
        • OnPointComments

          Thanks.

          • hennorama

            OPC – YW, anytime. I’ve done the same myself, earlier today in fact.

    • hennorama

      notafeminista – there’s nothing wrong with Congress requesting investigations, is there?

      Please note that the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) report indicated that they were responding to “concerns expressed by“ unnamed “members of Congress”, which could encompass Republicans, Democrats and Independents:

      “This audit was initiated based on concerns expressed by members of Congress and reported in the media regarding the IRS’s treatment of organizations applying for tax-exempt status.” (page 3 of the .pdf below)

      AND

      “During the 2012 election cycle, some members of Congress raised concerns to the IRS about selective enforcement and the duty to treat similarly situated organizations consistently. In addition, several organizations applying for I.R.C. § 501(c)(4) tax-exempt status made allegations that the IRS 1) targeted specific groups applying for tax-exempt status, 2) delayed the processing of targeted groups’ applications for tax-exempt status, and 3) requested unnecessary information from targeted organizations.

      “Lastly, several members of Congress requested that the IRS investigate whether existing social welfare organizations are improperly engaged in a substantial, or even predominant, amount of campaign activity. We initiated this audit based on concerns expressed by Congress and reported in the media regarding the IRS’s treatment of organizations applying for tax-exempt status. We focused our efforts on reviewing the processing of applications for tax-exempt status and
      determining whether allegations made against the IRS were founded.[12]

      “[12] A future audit is being considered to assess how the EO function monitors I.R.C. §§ 501(c)(4)–(6) organizations to ensure that political campaign intervention does not constitute their primary activity.” (page 9 of the .pdf below)

      For the full TIGTA report,
      see:
      http://www.treasury.gov/tigta/auditreports/2013reports/201310053fr.pdf

      • notafeminista

        “could encompass Democrats or Republicans” but didn’t.

        Here, the timing is key.

        • hennorama

          notafeminista – if your words were intended as a quote of my post, please endeavor in the future to present accurate quotes. Accuracy is important, wouldn’t you agree?

          This is what I wrote:

          “Please note that the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) report indicated that they were responding to “concerns expressed by“ unnamed “members of Congress”, which could encompass Republicans, Democrats and Independents:”

          Also, please provide supporting evidence for the “…but didn’t.” portion of your comment.

          • notafeminista

            H’orama TY for your response.  Due apologies for eliminating the independents.

            It is somewhat difficult to provide evidence of what is not there.

          • hennorama

            notafeminista – if you cannot provide evidence, is your comment valid?

            Alternatively, as you seem unable to support your original comment, you could instead rephrase your original comment into a more coherent form.

          • notafeminista

            It isn’t my coherence with which you have issue.

        • hennorama

          notafeminista – allow me to repeat my question:

          There’s nothing wrong with Congress requesting investigations, is there?

      • notafeminista

        H’orama TY for your inquiry and your response.  Would you agree that it should make no matter then, who is making the request?

    • Tyranipocrit

      so you mean they were doing there job?  investigating doesnt mean persecution or prosecution–it means sb is doing theri job effectively when it matters most.

      Thank you IRS

  • TomK_in_Boston

    Gregg doesn’t care if America becomes an aristocracy, but I’m not alone in thinking that’s not only un-American, but bad economics. Tax the rich, dammit:

    “WASHINGTON — A top Federal Reserve policymaker has raised the possibility that rising inequality may restrain economic growth for several years in a sign the central bank may be worried about the increasing gap between the rich and poor.“In my view, the large and increasing amount of inequality in income and wealth, which has been an ongoing development for decades, may have exacerbated the crisis,” Fed governor Sarah Bloom Raskin said Thursday in a speech delivered in Washington. “More research is required to determine whether it may also pose a significant headwind to the recovery from the crisis for years to come.””

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/16/sarah-bloom-raskin-inequality_n_3287760.html

    • Gregg Smith

      Please don’t tell me what I think.

      • StilllHere

        He doesn’t know what he thinks, much less what you do. He’s just nasty.

        • jefe68

          Troll.

        • Tyranipocrit

          yeah just nasty–oooh.  tard

      • jefe68

        Why not, you have no problem telling others what they think.

        • Gregg Smith

          I don’t do that.

          • Tyranipocrit

            yes you do

          • Gregg Smith

            No I don’t (I can do this all week).

      • TomK_in_Boston

        I’m shocked, Gregg, in view of your statements that inequality doesn’t matter. I mean, if inequality gets high enough, what do you think we’ll have? A good old American middle class society with inequality like Rwanda? 

        We made Business Insider’s list of the 39 most unequal nations. We’re only #39, but hey, we’re the only OECD nation to make it, we beat Russia and China, and those 3′rd world countries are tough competition.

        http://www.businessinsider.com/most-unequal-countries-in-the-world-2011-10?op=1

        I don’t think #1 Namibia is in any danger, but if we can keep up the voodoo economics, Zimbabwe, Zambia and Mexico better look out. USA! USA!

        • Gregg Smith

          I never said it didn’t matter, I said I don’t care how much anyone makes because it doesn’t affect me. I’ve said the rich did not get rich at the expense of the poor. And I’ve said any so-called “solution” sounds like Communism to me.

          • Tyranipocrit

            youare wrong.  everything you just said is just dumb.  Of course it effects you.  of course they rich at the expense of the poor–there is no other way.  you dont even know what communism is and u you keep using that talking point as if it means something.  you are very very small person.  clueless and poisonous to the fabric of society.

          • Gregg Smith

            Thank you.

      • Tyranipocrit

         we dont need to–you tell us show you dont think all the time.

    • Tyranipocrit

      America is an aristocracy.

  • notafeminista
  • jimino

    If one were the type who sees things as a conspiracy, one could see Obama as a right-wing “Manchurian-candidate”  president hell bent on continuing the destruction of citizen faith in our governmental institutions to competently and honestly perform the function we depend on them to accomplish, which of course has long been the right-wing’s true goal.

    • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

      What do you mean “if” 

  • jimino

    It really upsets you when the Dems take a page from the Republican playbook, doesn’t it?

    “GOP calls for IRS probe of AARP”

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/52829.html

    • notafeminista

      Did it happen?

  • Ray in VT

    Has no one mentioned Jason Richwine, the former Heritage Foundation employee and co-author of their immigration piece, and his views on how Hispanics immigrants have lower IQs that are likely to persist for generations, and that that is somehow tied to racial genetics.  Did that get a mention this week or last?  It seems that that really hit the fan over the weekend.

    • WorriedfortheCountry

       Old news.

      “his views”????  No, it is the data.   Talk about ‘anti-science’.

      You can see the liberal pedigree of his dissertation committee at Harvard here:

      http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/05/10/the_crucifixion_of_jason_richwine_118348.html

      • Ray in VT

        I wonder how he feels about being defended by Michelle “Round up the Muslims” Malkin?

        It is my understanding that he questions or suggests that there is a genetic, ethnically inherent link to lower IQs regarding Hispanic immigrants.  Do you want to go on the record as saying that their are inherent differences in intelligence between ethnic groups?  I am not attacking you or accusing you of anything, but IQ tests are notoriously iffy when it comes to actually measuring intelligence, due to the biases that are inherent in such tests, such as language used and cultural references that outsiders may not know.

        • WorriedfortheCountry

           I didn’t read his dissertation.  I also understand the problems with IQ test. 

          • Ray in VT

            I only saw some excerpts from it, but I think that one is on some very, very shaky and dangerous ground when one starts getting into the territory where one is saying that some ethnic groups are genetically predisposed to being less intelligent, which is where a couple of those excerpts seem to lead.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

             I guess you have an issue with the ‘peer review’ of the Harvard types?

          • Ray in VT

            I am very curious about how that all went down, given the body of research that does not show inherent differences between ethnic groups.

      • Ray in VT

        Also, old news?  This came to a head over the weekend, right?

        Here is something along the lines of what I was getting at with IQ tests:

        http://www.npr.org/blogs/newsandviews/2007/12/can_you_pass_the_chitling_test.html

        My psychology class took a similar test in high school, and we all flunked.  It didn’t mean that we were stupid, we just didn’t know the proper amount of time to cook chitlens.

        • WorriedfortheCountry

           The MM piece was dated 5/10 and that was in response to leftist attacks.

        • Steve__T

          Chitterlings. My Grandma would shoot me for correcting you.

          • Ray in VT

            No matter what you call ‘em, it’s gross!  I also refuse to eat natural casing hotdogs ever since I learned what that casing is, although who knows what is inside that casing.  Probably snouts, tails, and a few other things that I shouldn’t write here.

          • Steve__T

             Agreed!

    • WorriedfortheCountry
      • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

        What a surprise. The WashEx defending a racist hack who the Heritage FOundation, with all the entre they are granted, can’t even put across.

  • OnPointComments

    “Embattled IRS official Lois Lerner’s husband’s law firm has strong Obama connections”
     
    The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) official [ Exempt Organizations Division director Lois G. Lerner] who apologized for targeting conservative nonprofit groups for extra scrutiny is married to an attorney whose firm hosted a voter registration organizing event for the Obama presidential campaign, praised President Obama’s policy work, and had one of its partners appointed by Obama to a key ambassadorship.
     
    Earlier this week The Daily Caller reported that Lerner personally signed the tax-exemption approval for a shady charity run by Obama’s half-brother, after an inexplicably brief one-month application process.
     
    http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/16/embattled-irs-official-lois-lerners-husbands-law-firm-hosted-an-obama-campaign-organizing-meeting/

    • Gregg Smith

      It’s all so incestuous. Ben Rhodes was instrumental in rewriting the Benghazi talking points. His brother is President of CBS.

      • OnPointComments

        It’s all so incestuous AND nefarious.  Outgoing Commissioner Steven Miller admitted this morning that the question asked of Lois Lerner at the ABA meeting was planted, that Lerner knew in advance that the question would be asked, and that it was planned by the IRS.

  • Markus6

    On the reduced deficit: Jack really needs better basic math skills or maybe just start being an analyst instead of an advocate. A reduction in the yearly deficit means the national debt of 16 Trillion or so is still increasing. This is better than the yearly deficit increasing, but it’s still very very bad. It’s like building up a student debt of 100K in your first year, then being happy if it only goes to 180K in the second year. 

    And I am astounded that anyone can say the debt problem is solved or even getting better in any way. Do they know the difference between the national debt and a yearly deficit?

    • StilllHere

      In Jack’s case, definitely no.

  • OnPointComments

    “The Treasury Department’s inspector general told senior Treasury officials in June 2012 he was investigating allegations that the Internal Revenue Service had targeted conservative groups, disclosing for the first time on Friday that Obama administration officials were aware of the matter during the presidential campaign year.”
     
    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/18/us/politics/irs-scandal-congressional-hearings.html?_r=0 
     
    “Imagine, if you can, what would have happened if this fact [the targeting of conservative groups by the IRS], came out in September 2012 in the middle of a presidential election.”  –Lisa Myers, NBC News

    • hennorama

      OPC – Three points, followed by elaboration:

      #1 Awareness of an upcoming investigation is routine, and implies no wrongdoing on the part of “senior Treasury officials”. The IG simply told Treasury in June 2012 that he was going to be conducting an investigation into the allegations of “targeting”. He did not tell the Treasury officials of his later findings that inappropriate criteria had been used by the IRS. The IG’s conclusions could not yet have been formed in June 2012, since the investigation only started sometime that month, AND DIDN’T END UNTIL FEBRUARY 2013, eight months later.

      #2 The word “targeted” is pejorative and not what the IG found. There was no “targeting” found. The IG report found only that “Inappropriate Criteria Were Used to Identify Tax-Exempt Applications for Review”.

      #3 Ms. Myer did not say all of the the words you indicated.  Her interview was aired before the hearing was conducted, and what she said was later disproved by testimony from the IG, who simply told Treasury that he was going to be conducting an investigation into the allegations of so-called “targeting”, and not about his later conclusions that inappropriate criteria had been used.
      ========
      Elaboration #1: Being “aware of the matter during the presidential campaign year” (“the matter” being the IG investigation) is routine.

      From the fourth paragraph of the NY Times article you linked to and excerpted from:

      “At the first Congressional hearing into the I.R.S. scandal, J. Russell George, the Treasury inspector general for tax administration, told members of the House Ways and Means Committee that he informed the Treasury’s general counsel of his investigation on June 4, and Deputy Treasury Secretary Neal Wolin “shortly thereafter.” The new information came as part of a routine briefing of the investigations that the inspector general would be conducting in the coming year, and he did not tell the officials of his conclusions that the targeting had been improper, he said.”

      (There’s that pesky “targeting” word again, nagdabbit.)

      Let me truncate that last sentence, with EMPHASIS added:

      “…as part of a ROUTINE BRIEFING of …INVESTIGATIONS that the [IG] would be conducting IN THE COMING YEAR, …HE DID NOT TELL [Treasury] officials OF HIS CONCLUSIONS [that were formed only after the investigation ended EIGHT MONTHS LATER, in February 2013] THAT THE TARGETING HAD BEEN IMPROPER …”

      It is possible that the investigation had started by the day of the briefing, but we don’t have the exact starting date. The IG report indicates that “This review was performed at the EO function Headquarters office in Washington, D.C., and the Determinations Unit in Cincinnati, Ohio, during the period June 2012 through February 2013.” (see page 10 of the .pdf below)

      Full TIGTA report -
      http://www.treasury.gov/tigta/auditreports/2013reports/201310053fr.pdf

      =====
      Elaboration #2: The word “targeted” is pejorative.

      These were the ALLEGATIONS only, and NOT what the IG report found. The IG used the word IDENTIFY, and never found any “targeting”. The IG report found “Inappropriate Criteria Were Used to Identify Tax-Exempt Applications for Review”. (see page 1 of the .pdf above).

      In fact, Appendix VII of the report (“Comprehensive Timeline of Events”) also indicates in the very first item of the “Additional Details” section (with EMPHASIS added):

      “Determinations Unit personnel indicated that they USED the description TEA PARTY AS A SHORTHAND way of REFERRING TO the group of CASES INVOLVING POLITICAL CAMPAIGN INTERVENTION RATHER THAN TO TARGET ANY particular GROUP. The specialist used Tea Party, Patriots, and 9/12 as part of the criteria for these searches.”

      These “Additional Details” came from an “Interview” source. (see page 37 of the .pdf above)

      =====
      Elaboration #3: You put words into Ms. Myer’s mouth that she did not say ([the targeting of conservative groups by the IRS]). She said something close, however – “Members of Congress were saying conservatives were being targeted”.

      Here are Ms. Myer’s words, from the transcript of today’s “morning joe” show on MSNBC. The words you quoted are near the end, indicated with *** before and after ***:

      “Well certainly Joe the IRS commissioner will be asked that question today. Did he share this informa(tion) – he has known for at least a year that this was going on and that this had happened and did he share any of that information with the White House. But even more importantly Congress is going to ask him why did you mislead us for an entire year? Members of Congress were saying conservatives were being targeted. What’s going on here? The IRS denied it. Then when – after these officials are briefed by the IG this is going on,
      they don’t disclose it. In fact, the commissioner sent a letter to Congress in September on the subject and did not reveal this.
      ***Imagine if we – if you can what would have happened if this fact came out in September 2012 in the middle of a Presidential election***,
      the terrain would have looked very different.

      Note again, as indicated above, that what Ms. Myers said was later disproved by testimony from the IG, who simply told Treasury in June 2012 that he was going to be conducting an investigation into the allegations of so-called “targeting”, and not about his later conclusions that inappropriate criteria had been used.

      THERE WAS NO TARGETING found, according to the IG’s report.

      For Ms. Myer’s words, see:
      http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3036789/ns/msnbc-morning_joe/vp/51914371#51914371

      (I’d suggest viewing from about 7:08 into the video, which then leads into Ms. Myer’s words. BTW, this site has a very handy “transcript” feature which one can access once the video begins. Put your cursor inside the video box, then click the [transcript] button. The transcript pops up to the left of the video, and moves in synch. The transcript is also searchable, which is super handy. Try seaching for the word “target” for example).

      • OnPointComments

        In the testimony on CSpan today, the IG used the word “targeted.”

        • Gregg Smith

          If it quacks like a duck…

        • hennorama

          OPC – do you have a transcript, which would show the context?

          [EDIT/ADD] Because if Mr. George testified using that word, it would be in conflict with what was found in the IG report, which did NOT use that word other than when discussing the allegations of “targeting”.

          • OnPointComments

            No, but I watched the full testimony today.  Let’s cut to the chase:  do you really think choosing between “identified” and “targeted” makes much of a difference to those who bore the brunt of abusive IRS scrutiny?  In my opinion, when the IRS automatically selects 100% of groups because of a word in their name, and only those groups are subjected to the 100% rule, that is targeting.  As you said, “targeting” is pejorative, as were the actions of the IRS.

          • hennorama

            OPC – I’m interested in accuracy.

            I’m also not certain that your characterizations of “abusive scrutiny” and/or “when the IRS automatically selects 100% of groups because of a word in their name, and only those groups are subjected to the 100% rule …” are known or borne out by the evidence at this time.

            But there is no dispute that the IRS’ actions were inappropriate.

            I’ve found confirmation of your comment, in a “RUSH TRANSCRIPT” on CNN.com:

            http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1305/17/cnr.01.html

            Mr. George used the word “target” twice, but he also switched back and forth between various forms of the word “select”. His oral testimony begins about halfway down the page:

            “The IRS used inappropriate criteria to TARGET for review, Tea Party, and other organizations based on their name and policy positions. This practice started in 2010 and continued to evolve until June of 2011.”

            Later, he switched to “selecting” and “select”:

            “Although these criteria appeared in the IRS’ own documentation as of June 20112, IRS employees began SELECTING Tea Party and other organizations for review in early 2010. From May 2010 to May of 2012, a team of IRS specialists in Cincinnati, Ohio, referred to as the determinations unit SELECTED 298 cases for additional scrutiny.”

            And then back to “target”

            “The IRS’s inappropriate criteria remained in effect for approximately 22 months. After learning of the inappropriate criteria, the director of exempt organizations changed the criteria in July 2011 to remove references to organization names and policy positions. However, Cincinnati staff changed the criteria back to TARGET organizations with specific policy positions, but this time, they did not include Tea Party or other named organizations.“

            And then back to “selected”

            “The organization SELECTED for review for significant political campaign intervention, again 298 in all, experienced substantial delays in the processing of their applications.”

            The various forms of the word “select” wins, 3 to 2, at least with respect to this portion of Mr. George’s testimony.

            BTW, I also found this testimony earlier, using the very handy site livedash.ark.com, where one can “Search everything said today on TV” and is super-handy to use before “official” transcripts become available on various news sites:

            00:16:27 “First, that the irs targeted specific groups applying for tax-exempt status.”

            See:http://livedash.ark.com/transcript/america's_newsroom/51/Fox_News/Friday_May_17_2013/650347/

          • OnPointComments

            Thanks for the useful link.
             
            Who are your donors?  What is the subject of your prayers?  What books have you read?  Do you directly or indirectly communicate with members of legislative bodies?  Do you encourage eligible voters to educate themselves, register to vote, and vote?  Has your organization engaged in any activition (sic) with the news media?  What were the times, location, and content of each of your meetings?  What key issues are important to your organization?
             
            And on and on and on.  I don’t need an IG report or a congressional hearing to know that the questions are intrusive and abusive.  I’d bet money that if this same abuse was heaped on progressive organizations we would have heard about it by now.

          • hennorama

            OPC – YW, and fair enough.

          • sickofthechit

             I don’t get what the big deal is about those questions.  Are they ashamed of what they believe, or not savvy enough to form an answer?  I heard the other day that the classification they were seeking is given automatically and does not need to be applied for.  That in fact filing their tax return is an acceptable form of registration.charles a. bowsher

          • Gregg Smith

            You, of course, are right. I watched as much of the testimony as I could and it was clear. I understand and endorse Henny’s point that words have meaning but that can be taken to extremes as she has done. Clinton was the master of wiggling out by parsing. At a certain point it becomes dishonest. 

            IMHO there is no way to watch the testimony and come away concluding conservatives were not targeted whether the word was used or not. We are then left with a whole lot of empty, hollow and futile verbiage attempting to excuse the inexcusable. The truth requires few words.

          • Bruce94

             Hen, maybe you should cut OPC some slack; he’s obviously on a mission to spin as much of this as possible to fit an anti-govt., paranoid conspiracy theory.  When you’re on a mission like that, the exact wording in the report doesn’t matter AND it’s okay to mischaracterize the written record and provide no context of what you thought you heard.  “Targeting” conveys aggression; “identifying” is way too soft. 

            In all seriousness, thanks for keeping the conversation real. 

          • hennorama

            Bruce94 – TY for your response and your kind words.

            I have no problems exchanging with OPC, and I suspect OPC doesn’t mind the challenges. OPC also is responsive to suggestions, as in the way OPC earlier today excerpted only the factual info contained in an IBD editorial.

            Thanks again for your kind words.

            PS. – BTW, in today’s oral testimony, Mr. George began with “target”, switched to “selecting” and “select”, then back to “target”, then back to “selected”.

            Mr. George never used the word “identify” in the “RUSH TRANSCRIPT” from CNN.com below.

            See:http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1305/17/cnr.01.html

          • Gregg Smith

            A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

            Conservatives were targeted, identified, singled out, pointed to, assumed to be, cherry picked, put in a separate file…. take your pick. The IRS still did what they did.

            But then the President is asked if he can assure the American people no one in the White House knew about it, he can say, I knew nothing about the IG report and all of the sudden the non-answer is accepted and defended. There is no need for him to be accurate, there is no need for him to answer a direct question.

        • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

          Let me know when that reaches Threat Level Midnight “audited”.

  • WorriedfortheCountry

    Maybe now we can pursue tax reform and tax simplification.  The goal should be to make it so simple that we can abolish the IRS and prevent any future abuse of power.

  • Bruce94

    Not much discussion by today’s panel about House Republicans who, in keeping with their do-nothing, cynical posturing, once again voted to repeal the ACA for the 37th time.  I’m sure informed independents and moderates on both sides of the aisle are really gratified to see this useless, counterproductive Congressional exercise–an exercise otherwise known as a Tea Party profile in courage.

    What we learned this week from the bipartisan Benghazi hearings is that the smoking-gun email reported by ABC directly linking the White House to an alleged nefarious scheme to scrub the talking points was bogus AND the actual 100-page record released by the admin. provides no evidence of a cover-up involving the WH. 

    What we also can learn from the way the Benghazi hearings have been conducted is that when it comes to bipartisan problem-solving, the GOP is incapable of providing leadership.  They couldn’t even pass expanded gun sales background check legislation with 80-90% of their constituents in favor of it.  Why should we expect any difference in the conduct of the GOP-led Congressional inquiries into the latest IRS and AP scandals?  Meanwhile, the GOP playbook should be clear based on the rush to judgment in the Benghazi case:  since the GOP has no legislative agenda anyway, they will use hyperbole and feigned righteous indignation over these two latest incidents to divert attention away from other pressing needs and problems including job creation & sequester cuts, immigration reform, sensible gun regulation, tax reform, balanced deficit reduction and ACA implementation.

    • brettearle

      Well said.  Well envisioned.

      The Witch Hunts and the Fishing Expeditions may not end–until someone is Hung….whether there’s criminal activity or not.

      Do we, at this point, concede the sparse WH Agenda for the second term–because of Congressional Recalcitrance and the WH devoting excessive time to Overhaul and Damage Control?

      • Bruce94

        I think before the WH reaches the point of conceding, the public will grow weary of the all the partisan hype and conspiracy theory.  It certainly didn’t help Romney to politicize Benghazi in a futile effort to reinvigorate his anemic campaign toward the end of the last electoral season .  Unlike Benghazi, the IRS and AP scandals might wind up having legs and could reinvigorate the zombie Tea Party base (i.e. boost fundraising) so that it will be less likely that moderates capable of governing and compromising in a responsible manner putting country before party, will be elected from conservative districts and states.

        I’m confident though that whatever failings of the Obama administration are found, they are unlikely to rise to the level of deceit exhibited by those in the Reagan admin. involved in Iran-Contra or for that matter by Nixon and high officials in his admin. involved in Watergate or the Bush admin. in the run up to the Iraq War.  Contrary to the exhortations of the far-right media echo chamber and Faux News, once this level of awareness is reached, I believe scandal fatigue will set in and the public will be eager to move on to a more substantive agenda.

        • brettearle

          I think Iran-Contra was the biggie.

          Imagine comparing that fracas to Perjury for lying about Sex!

          • Bruce94

            Yep, and if the GOP is not careful and they continue their attack- dog tactics to demonize the President before the all the facts are ascertained, 2014 could wind up to be a repeat of 1998.  If you recall, the mid-term elections that year were a huge disappointment to Republicans, who expected to see spectacular gains after shamelessly exploiting the Lewinsky scandal in order to push for Impeachment.  Not only did they fail to make any gains, they lost 5 seats in the House prompting Newt’s resignation as Speaker.  Later, Clinton would emerge with the highest end-of-office approval rating of any U.S. President since WWII.  Since then, Clinton’s favorability has risen and now, I believe, exceeds that of “the Gipper,” and Clinton’s legacy remains intact despite GOP efforts to vilify him reminiscent of the pathetic GOP campaign now underway to damage Obama by a barrage of unsubstantiated allegations, mischaracterizations of fact, and unwarranted conclusions drawn from the facts.

    • hennorama

      Bruce94 – as the saying goes, “twelve times the third time, plus one time’s the charm” – From the Dept. Of I Thought Republicans Were Supposed To “Stop Being The Stupid Party”.

      And of course, Michele Bachmann launched an ad about the vote, a mere 17 months before her next election, saying,

      “Great news. The US House just passed MY bill to repeal Obamacare”.

      http://bcove.me/pply1f3d

      Readmore:
      http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/michele-bachmann-launches-tv-ads-17-months-before-election-91510.html#ixzz2Tc0dpgIl

  • marygrav

    The Republicans have their knickers in a twist about what they perfected themselves during the Bush administration.  The IRS have always been Devils.  However, someone told me on the radio that WE ARE AT WAR.  I know that Congress has to declare war, but over 5,000 died in Iraq (undeclared except for Terror); and those guys in Iraq, Afganistan, and other parts of the Middle East don’t believe we are only trying to free them, instead are trying to free themselves from US. Ungrateful Natives though they may be: they do recognize the Colonizer even if dressed in different military clothing.

    If we are at War, we cannot afford to give any aid or comfort to the enemy, especially if they are military secret operations.  This is why the Bin Laden caper had to be kept from the Pakistani Secret Service.

    It Okay to bring up the First Amendment, but in time of War, this can be dicey.  Gottcha moments can be dangerous and put the entire nation in peril. 

    Election 2014 and Presidential 2016 has the GOP in a panic because they have no other platform but Obstructionism.  Mitch McConnell is in trouble in Kentucky: Obama as a one term president if impeached would get him over.

    Lindsey Graham was too cooperative; therefore he must be brought down low.  Now he and the other Attack Dog for the Neocons are baying at Obama’s heels.

    We may be in Syria next month if Obama needs a distraction and chooses to us George W. Bush or Benjamin Netanyhu as models when things get too hot at home.

    Remember Valerie Plame how none of the Republicans made a fuss over.  And I. Scooter Libby is still at large.

    Election 2014 is almost here; and Sanford won in South Carolina.

    • brettearle

      I’m a Democrat.

      But whether you or I like it or not–regardless of scandals–I think Christie is the next President.

      Do me a favor….don’t even bring Graham up.  Or McCain, for that matter.

      They are well beyond their shelf life.

      They are your above average Disgraces, posing as statesmen, at this point:

      Piling it on, for the sake of piling it on.

      Either that, or declaring war on another country.

      Do any of us REALIZE that in the last 10 years, McCain has tried to declare, or has declared, war on FIVE countries?

      Iraq
      Afghanistan
      Libya
      Iran
      Syria

      Let’s buy him a Board Game of Risk and let him work it out on his kitchen table….

      Gad!

      IMAGINE if he had beaten Obama!

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

        Shelf life?

        But that means one thing for a Dem and another for a Republican, Henno.

        Thanks to our press corps who feel the need to treat John McCain as the winner he never was in defeat; a courtesy never extended to a Democrat who loses.

        Why is John McCain always on my TV every Sunday? What insight does he have to offer besides sour grapes?

        • brettearle

          `Twas a comment by Brettearle, not Henno.

          Though I take your mistaken identity as a compliment.

          Oh, yes…..when you write the comment above, you are preaching to the choir, headed by Brettearle and Henno and by you, of course.

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

            (Geez, I did misname you. I’m better off saying “sport”, “chief” or “pal”, just like in real life.)

  • Gregg Smith

    Man, Steven Miller got drilled today. Paul Ryan proved he withheld evidence in previous testimony. This whole thing stinks. 

    In his press conference, why wouldn’t Obama say he knew nothing about the IRS abuse when asked? Why wouldn’t he say no one in his administration knew anything about it when asked directly? He knew.

    • William

       It is interesting to see the casual way this guy talked about this type of behavior. He has no fear at all about being held accountable for anything and in his mind this type of behavior by the IRS is ok. Just a tip of the iceberg of how the elite government class in our society behaves and what they must think about ordinary Americans.

      • Gregg Smith

        It is truly amazing but I must say he was handed his ass today by both parties. I was even impressed with Rangel’s hypocritical self. I don’t have a clue if in the end it will matter. I hope so. 

    • brettearle

      How do you know he knew?

      Simply because you are out to nail him?

      Blame, blame, blame, blame.

      Blame no matter what….

      No one says Obama shouldn’t be criticized for these matters happening on HIS WATCH.

      OF COURSE, he should.

      But, Gregg, UNTIL YOU HAVE MORE FACTS, why can’t you refrain from displaying your decisive political bias?

      • Gregg Smith

        I can’t prove he knew. I was referring to his press conference when the woman from Bloomberg news asked him (paraphrasing) if he could assure the American people that no one in the White House knew about the IRS shenanigans. He answered that he didn’t know about the IG report which was not the question. So he refused to say no one in the White House knew or that he knew. He was not asked about the IG report. Why not answer the question unless the truth was he or someone in the White House knew? I consider that damning when on considers the IRS’ chief counsel knew in 2010 and the Commissioner knew in 2011.

        Now, you have in the past brought up the issue of plausible deniability and it’s valid. However, this was a big deal. If the IG was investigating issues of this nature and ready to release a report of this magnitude then why on earth would someone not inform the President? IMHO the only reason was to protect him. But I don’t buy it, it’s his MO. It’s the way he operates. He put people in place who were of like mind and may not have been ordered but they are all on the same page.

        I don’t like Obama. I think he is a horrible President harming America. We don’t agree, I understand that. But to me this is serious stuff. I am in no way out to nail him just because he’s a Democrat or Liberal or black, all of which I’ve been accused of. I deny the charge. I cannot relate to that frame of mind one iota. It’s totally foreign to me and makes no sense at all. All I want is the truth and it is not forthcoming.

        Edit to add:

        If the President is truly as outraged as he claims then this is no time to parse and split hairs. He should have answered the question forthrightly. Also, if he was truly concerned heads should be rolling for keeping him in the dark. The President of the United States of America should not be hearing this for the first time on CNN or wherever.

        Having said that, I’ll back off because you have a point. This is the best I can do. Someone in the White House knew. Obama may not have known first hand but he’s not mad about being uninformed.

        • brettearle

          I agree that he SHOULD have answered the question, directly.

          It is my understanding that the IG results were Dispositive.

          If he’s hiding something, I’d be surprised.

          I think that he is probably more political than I give him `discredit’ for.  [But I am NOT saying that I have never considered him `political'.]

          The AP story aside, the `Leak’ issue in his Administration seems to almost be systemic–and the way that he has handled it, to me, has been clumsy. 

          You may have no respect for him, as President–and that’s all acceptable, if that’s how you feel.

          But I’d be hard pressed to reconcile that some of your cynicism isn’t politically based, regardless of how incompetent you may think he is.

          I don’t think that you were accusing me of accusing you of being Racist.

          I understand that.

          But I want to go on record as saying, nevertheless, that I have NEVER seen, in  any of your comments that I have read, to be anything OTHER than criticizing Obama as a statesman or a politician.

          But I think it’s quite important to concede that the harsh criticism–and the ridicule– that the President has received from the Right, is, on occasion, very likely–at least partially–Racially based, sometimes, I think.

          But, with regard to your politics….I `dare’ say, regardless of your dislike for the current President, I simply don’t think you have Liberal instincts….

          Nothing wrong with that, exactly….I guess?

          • Gregg Smith

            It’s a fair charge to say I have no respect for him as President but I do respect the office. I would say my respect for the office is the reason for my disrespect for him. But that’s all really beside the point.

            And true, I was not accusing you of thinking I’m a racist. As much as we disagree I consider you an honest broker (to coin a phrase from Mike Card). You couched the comment (“on occasion, very likely–at least partially–Racially based, sometimes, I think”) in such a charming way I cannot disagree. That’s honest and rare. 

            I have a few liberal instincts. I’m pro-choice, pro drug legalization and a non Christian (not to be confused with atheist). But I am unabashedly conservative on many issues. I am not a registered Republican.

            I just think this whole thing stinks. And I must say I am not surprised at all by any of it. That is based on my admittedly biased views, many of which have been proven correct.

        • hennorama

          Gregg Smith – you can find an accurate record, with no need to inaccurately paraphrase, of “when the woman from Bloomberg news asked him (paraphrasing) if he could assure the American people that no one in the White House knew about the IRS shenanigans”, here:

          http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/05/16/joint-press-conference-president-obama-and-prime-minister-erdogan-turkey

          This has been available for quite some time.

          In the spirit of the other OP show from today – “How Great Quotes Shaped Our World” -

          “Never memorize something that you can look up.” ― Albert Einstein

          • Gregg Smith

            I posted the complete press conference previously but thank you for the link. I certainly believe my characterization was accurate so while the transcript is welcome, it does not change anything regarding my comment.

          • hennorama

            Gregg Smith – TYFYR.

            You indeed got the spirit of ONE of the three questions Julianna Goldman of Bloomberg asked the President right, but why paraphrase when you already knew of a source for the exact wording? You did write “I posted the complete press conference previously…”, did you not?

            Ms. Goldman’s questions to Pres. Obama were:

            “Can you assure the American people that nobody in the White House knew about the agency’s actions before your Counsel’s Office found out on April 22nd? And when they did find out, do you think that you should have learned about it before you learned about it from news reports as you said last Friday? And also, are you opposed to there being a special council appointed to lead the Justice Department investigation?” (Source below).

            You began this thread by asking “In his press conference, why wouldn’t Obama say he knew nothing about the IRS abuse when asked? Why wouldn’t he say no one in his administration knew anything about it when asked directly? He knew.”

            Then you answered one of your own questions by writing “He answered that he didn’t know about the IG report which was not the question.” This paraphrased answer may not have been highly responsive to “the question” from Ms. Goldman, but it DID answer YOUR very first question (“why wouldn’t Obama say he knew nothing about the IRS abuse when asked?”), did it not?

            You disproved your own premise by using an inaccurately paraphrased question, and an inaccurately paraphrased answer. This is yet another reason not to paraphrase, especially when you already knew of a source for the exact wording.

            One might fairly call this lazy, might one not?

            For the record, the President’s actual complete non-cherry-picked non-paraphrased response to Ms. Goldman was:

            “PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, with respect to the IRS, I spoke to this yesterday. My main concern is fixing a problem, and we began that process yesterday by asking and accepting the resignation of the Acting Director there. We will be putting in new leadership that will be able to make sure that — following up on the IG audit — that we gather up all the facts, that we hold accountable those who have taken these outrageous actions. As I said last night, it is just simply unacceptable for there to even be a hint of partisanship or ideology when it comes to the application of our tax laws.

            “I am going to go ahead and ask folks — why don’t we get a couple of Marines, they’re going to look good next to us — (laughter) — just because I’ve got a change of suits — (laughter) — but I don’t know about our Prime Minister. There we go. That’s good. You guys I’m sorry about. (Laughter.)

            “But let me make sure that I answer your specific question. I can assure you that I certainly did not know anything about the IG report before the IG report had been leaked through the press. Typically, the IG reports are not supposed to be widely distributed or shared. They tend to be a process that everybody is trying to protect the integrity of. But what I’m absolutely certain of is that the actions that were described in that IG report are unacceptable.

            “So in addition to making sure that we’ve got a new acting director there, we’re also going to make sure that we gather up the facts, and hold accountable and responsible anybody who was involved in this. We’re going to make sure that we identify any structural or management issues to prevent something like this from happening again. We’re going to make sure that we are accepting all of the recommendations that the IG has in the report.

            “And I’m looking forward to working with Congress to fully investigate what happened, make sure that it doesn’t happen again, and also look at some of the laws that create a bunch of ambiguity in which the IRS may not have enough guidance and not be clear about what exactly they need to be doing and doing it right, so that the American people have confidence that the tax laws are being applied fairly and evenly.

            “So in terms of the White House and reporting, I think that you’ve gotten that information from Mr. Carney and others. I promise you this — that the minute I found out about it, then my main focus is making sure we get the thing fixed. I think that it’s going to be sufficient for us to be working with Congress. They’ve got a whole bunch of committees. We’ve got IGs already there.

            “The IG has done an audit; it’s now my understanding they’re going to be recommending an investigation. And Attorney General Holder also announced a criminal investigation of what happened. Between those investigations, I think we’re going to be able to figure out exactly what happened, who was involved, what went wrong, and we’re going to be able to implement steps to fix it.

            “And that, ultimately, is the main priority that I have, but also I think the American people have. They understand that we’ve got an agency that has enormous potential power and is involved in everybody’s lives. And that’s part of the reason why it’s been treated as a quasi-independent institution. But that’s also why we’ve got to make sure that it is doing its job scrupulously and without even a hint of bias, or a hint that somehow they’re favoring one group over another.

            “And, as I said yesterday, I’m outraged by this in part because, look, I’m a public figure — if a future administration is starting to use the tax laws to favor one party over another or one political view over another, obviously we’re all vulnerable. And that’s why, as I’ve said, it doesn’t matter whether you’re a Democrat or a Republican, you should be equally outraged at even the prospect that the IRS might not be acting with the kind of complete neutrality that we expect.

            “And I think we’re going to be able to fix it. We’re going to be able to get it done, and we’ve already begun that progress and we’re going to keep on going until it’s finished.”

            Source:http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/05/16/joint-press-conference-president-obama-and-prime-minister-erdogan-turkey

            TYAFYR.

          • Gregg Smith

            I disagree, he did not answer the question. He was not asked about the IG report and I find your position very out of character for you.

            He left open the possibility that he knew all about the abuse, he ordered the abuse, he condoned the abuse and oh BTW he did not know about the IG report.

            Now usually you would be all over this, would you not? I mean words have meanings and he clearly did not answer the question asked, he clearly deflected to another irrelevant answer. 

            No, my paraphrasing was accurate. Using the actual quotes would not have changed anything about my comment. And neither would adding about 10 paragraphs of quotes that had nothing to do with my comment.

            So I’ll ask you, why wouldn’t Obama say he knew nothing about the IRS abuse when asked? Why wouldn’t he say no one in his administration knew anything about it when asked directly?

          • hennorama

            Gregg Smith – TYFYR.

            As I am not a mind reader, I have no way to answer your questions.

            Available alternatives are simple speculation and common conjecture, which you eagerly engaged in, and neither of which have valid value.

          • Gregg Smith

            So you agree he did not answer the question and are not curious as to why? Or do you think we should demand an answer?

      • notafeminista

        You’re assuming he didn’t know.  Right now the Left (and more accurately specifically apologists for President Obama) are like a battered spouse – making excuses for his/her husband/wife.

        It must be apparently to solely save face as President Obama cannot be re-elected and there is not another campaign to consider

        • brettearle

          A man’s innocent until proven guilty.

          • notafeminista

            Tell that to George Zimmerman.

          • brettearle

            Court of Public Opinion has nothing to do with my own personal viewpoint towards the guilt or innocence of the President.

            Nor does my personal viewpoint of the President’s guilt or innocence have anything to do with my own viewpoint of Zimmerman’s guilt or innocence.

            Nor does the Court of Public’s opinion view of the President’s guilt have anything to do with the Court of Public Opinion’s view of Zimmerman’s guilt.

      • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

        Pot calling kettle black.

        • brettearle

           Kettle Black commenter smoking Pot. 

    • Mike_Card

      C’mon, that’s just another guy’s riff on your “don’t tell me what I think.”  And don’t forget that Miller was ‘acting,’ because the right in the Senate won’t act on an Obama nomination.  Unless I’ve mis-heard, Miller was a Bush appointee.  (And if I have, tell me who the Bush appointee running the show is, cuz there is one.)

      And you’re referring to the steel trap mind of Paul Ryan? Who ran a 2:50-something marathon?

      • Gregg Smith

        Miller was appointed by Obama. The IRS chief counsel was appointed but Obama. Miller’s predecessor, Doug Shulman, was a DNC donating Democrat appointed by Bush.

  • http://www.facebook.com/arttoegemann Art Toegemann

    OK. I’ll do it. The only comment here on this, and a “second opinion” to some shameful media hype.
    Angelina Jolie is a chain smoking woman who decided that the best way for her to prevent breast cancer was to have her breasts removed. Setting a poor example, her competence in general is to be called into question, as are the disgraceful machinations by the editors at the NYT.
    For a far more enlightened opinion on this subject than this program provides, including the history of the genetic company that is promoting this:
    http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/did-angelina-jolie-make-mistake-acting-breast-cancer-gene-theory 
    and
    http://www.forksoverknives.com/angelina-jolies-double-mastectomy-people-are-desperate-for-change/
    At least these sources made the effort to earn doctorates in medicine.
    The only example Ms. Jolie has set is of the result of poor health habits. As recently as late last year, she was seen malnourished, chain smoking, and collapsing. Authorities were considering taking her children from her.

    • Gregg Smith

      I hear ya’ but it’s just not my business. It’s her life, it’s her body.

      • http://www.facebook.com/arttoegemann Art Toegemann

        It’s media savvy. She and the editors of the NYT have extended her life by huge exposure to be a corporate shill; confidentiality abandoned. While buying groceries yesterday I had to see this matter on the cover of a pop mag. She has made her business our business and so has obligations.
        The unanimous gushing over this comes without question, much less cross examination. At least begin at the beginning: why are we subjected to an actress’s opinion of medical procedure?

  • OnPointComments

    From CBS News’ Sharyl Attkisson about Benghazi (emphasis added):
     
    The Foreign Emergency Support Team known as “FEST” is described as “the US Government’s only interagency, on-call, short-notice team poised to respond to terrorist incidents worldwide.” It even boasts hostage-negotiating expertise. With U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens reported missing shortly after the Benghazi attacks began, Washington officials were operating under a possible hostage scenario at the outset.  YET DEPLOYMENT OF THE COUNTERTERRORISM EXPERTS ON THE FEST WAS RULED OUT FROM THE START. THAT DECISION BECAME A SOURCE OF GREAT INTERNAL DISSENT AND THE CAUSE OF PUZZLEMENT TO SOME OUTSIDERS.

      Thursday, an administration official who was part of the Benghazi response told CBS News: “I WISH WE’D SENT IT.” The official said Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s deputy, Patrick Kennedy, quickly dispensed with the idea. A senior State Department official Thursday told CBS News, “Under Secretary Kennedy is not in the decision chain on FEST deployment” but would not directly confirm whether Kennedy or somebody else dismissed the FEST.  [FEST leader] leader Mark Thompson says BENGHAZI WAS PRECISELY THE SORT OF CRISIS TO WHICH HIS TEAM IS TRAINED TO RESPOND. While it was the State Department that’s said to have taken FEST off the table, the team is directed by the White House National Security Council.
     
    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57584921/officials-on-benghazi-we-made-mistakes-but-without-malice/

    • Gregg Smith

      Thank you OPC. I saw that earlier and was (am) intending to revisit Benghazi. So many scandals so little time. It’s a huge issue. So often the cover-up is worse than the crime but that’s not the case here as bad as the cover up is. I have no patience left for anyone who still at this point denies the cover up.

  • OnPointComments

    For the moment, I’m going to continue to give President Obama the benefit of the doubt that he had no direct involvement in the IRS targeting of conservative groups.  However, having heard 3 interviews with Frank Vandersloot in the past 2 days, whose life was made a living hell after the Obama campaign identified him and 7 others on its campaign website, it strains credulity to believe that there is not an indirect relationship.  After Vandersloot was publicly named by the Obama campaign on its enemies list, he was targeted by left-wing websites, had a private investigator from an opposition research firm trying to uncover dirt on him, and had 3 federal agency audits in 4 months.  Coincidence?  Perhaps, but I doubt it.

    • StilllHere

      Impossible.  This is Chicago politics, Washington-edition.

    • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

      And King Henry was not guilty of the murder of St. Thomas Becket, he only said, “Who will rid me of the troublesome priest?” 

  • OnPointComments

    “Given the variety of scandals this administration is facing, from the Benghazi talking points to AP phone taps and the IRS’s political targeting, Jay Carney can’t possibly remember all the lies that need to be told, the half-answers that need to be given and the ignorance that needs to be claimed in order to protect the president.”
     
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2013/05/16/the-insiders-white-house-spin-we-dont-know-what-happened-but-it-wont-happen-again/ 
     
    Perfectly stated.  That’s the problem with lies and semantics, you have to remember which lies you told and how you told them.
     
    Do I care about the difference between conservative groups being “identified” or “targeted”?  Whether President Obama said “I” or “anyone in the White House” when answering who knew about the IG report?  The difference between “terror” and “terrorism” when discussing Benghazi?  No, I don’t care.  Because I’m pretty sure that when the statements are parsed so carefully that the administration is not being honest with America.

    • Gregg Smith

      And that’s the point, seeing the forest despite the trees.

      Do you remember Baghdad Bob? I think he is the perfect replacement for Carney who is toast. 

  • Tyranipocrit

    there is nothing wrong with asking the IRS to do its job.  If you are a narcotics cops looking for drugs, do you target known drug dealers or hospice nurses?

    There is no scandal here.

    The only scandal that the Obama administration should be charged with is absolving Bush and cheny of thier very serious crimes against the world and humanity–the Cheny administration belongs in jail–forever.  And Obama let them go–a huge scandal–treacherous even. 

    These are other non-issues are just as lame as a BJ in the oval office.  Why do we even entertain the childish episodes of republican child mentality?

    what a f-joke–”impeachment”–if anyone should be impeached it should be Bush and cheny. How is it possible that terrorists like cheny and bush are considered lawful and presidents concerned with the prosperity of American people are insulted like this?

    • pete18

      Two points of view from the Washington post:

      Two Papers in One!

      “Obama a New Nixon? Oh, Get Serious.
      Standing before reporters Thursday, President Obama declined an invitation to compare the recent scandals weighing down his administration with those that forced President Nixon to resign in 1974. So allow us to do the work for him: There is no comparison. . . . The Benghazi talking points scandal is no scandal whatsoever. The government failed to anticipate the attack on Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and to protect him and those who died alongside him, but there was no coverup of the failure and no conspiracy to deceive the American people about what had happened.”–headline and excerpt, Washington Post editorial, May 17

      “You were talking earlier about kind of dismissing the Benghazi issue as one that’s just political and the president recently said it’s a sideshow.
      But if you read through all these e-mails, you see that everyone in the government is saying, ‘Oh, let’s not tell the public that terrorists were involved, people connected to al Qaeda. Let’s not tell the public
      that there were warnings.’ I hate to show, this is one of the documents with the editing that one of the people in the State Department said, ‘Oh, let’s not let these things out.’ And I have to go back 40 years to
      Watergate when Nixon put out his edited transcripts to the conversations, and he personally went through them and said, ‘Oh, let’s not tell this, let’s not show this.’ I would not dismiss Benghazi. It’s a
      very serious issue.”–the Washington Post’s Bob Woodward on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe, May 17

      http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324082604578489171510582616.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_MIDDLETopOpinion

      • Tyranipocrit

         please dont use mainstream media heads as evidence–it is not–if you follow mainstream media i am not surprised you are brainwashed and seriosly flawed in your thinking.  You have just lost the debate.  Play again sometime.  But now you must go.  bye.

        • notafeminista

          Mainstream like the NYT, NPR and the LATimes? All three have been referenced on these pages multiple times just with regard to the news roundup.

          Maybe you could get with TF and let the rest of us know what sources you find acceptable so they can be cited from consistently.

          • pete18

             I’m sure anything written by Marx and Engels will suffice.

          • Tyranipocrit

            yes if you think so–mainstream news is BS. I listen to NPR to get the most trusted propaganda; one must know what the liars are saying. I didnt say i give it much credibility. I dont go around trying to prove points with it or basing my idea of society on it–anyone who does is brainwashed. If you want to be considered halfway intelligent dont use mainstream sources.

  • OnPointComments

    I am somewhat dismayed by the number of commenters who either excuse, rationalize, or outright condone the IRS’s targeting of specific groups.  I can imagine that if this were occurring 75 years ago, in another country, these commenters would have been perfectly okay with requiring one group to wear a yellow patch on their clothing.

    • jefe68

      Hyperbolic. As a Jew, who had family members die in camps, I will tell you right now you have crossed the line of decency. Knock it off.

      • Tyranipocrit

         thank you. 

      • OnPointComments

        Here’s what brought my analogy to mind:
         
        Does your organization support the existence of the land of Israel? 

        Describe your organization’s religious belief system towards the land of Israel.
         
        These are questions asked by the IRS of a Pennsylvania Jewish religious organization.  I don’t know what is going on at the IRS, but I find it exceptionally troubling.  Where will the line be drawn?  Some have condoned the current actions of the IRS, but if the agency has the power to ask these questions today, what questions will it ask tomorrow?
         
        “We must know that when evil has power, it is almost too late.”  –Elie Wiesel

        • Tyranipocrit

           this is the way it is off point comments–isreal is not america–NOT america–choose a country to live in ok.  We dont have to support isreal –we are americans.  It is not  our sister nation.  Isreal as an abomination–because the land was stolen by the west and now Isreal is committing apartheid and terror and genocide.  I dont supoport that.  i never will.  if you are a jewish american–welcome home.  Isreal is a fraud and a monster and must be stopped.  i say the same about china–but in a different capacity.  I would ask where is your loyalty–with america or isreal?  decide.  you cant have both.  choose isreal and you choose the terrorists.  tho america is pretty bad too.  But i am not the same as my governmnt. 

          • OnPointComments

            If Muslims laid down their arms today, there would be peace in the Middle East.  If Israel laid down its arms today, tomorrow it would be destroyed.

          • Tyranipocrit

            so what? i dont believe that anyways–talking points

          • Tyranipocrit

            muslims lay down thier arms–yopu mean let Americans and israli thugs walk all over them–rape their women, burn down their homes–take thier homes and land. Thats what you call peace.

    • Roy-in-Boise

      The only people that have it in the hearts to dish out yellow patches is the far right.

      • Tyranipocrit

         exactly.  Well said Roy.  we are talking about a radical 1% that is in the process of dismantling democracy and running rampant over the poor and middle classes–it is not evil to check them.  Such apologies for the ruthless 1% are disgusting and simply inappropriate.  You defenders of that is corrupt and powerful need to take a look in the mirror.

      • pete18

         Guess you never heard of a guy named Stalin.

      • StilllHere

        And yet the evidence refutes this every day.

        • Tyranipocrit

          the evidence in america implicates it as truth everyday.  Your dystopia will look different but it will be the same kind of evil.

    • Tyranipocrit

       ridiculous!!  Not even comparable.  Sit down.

    • StilllHere

      Exactly.  The hypocrisy of the left knows no bounds and the apologists have a million excuses.

      • jefe68

        Put a sock in it already. 

    • jefe68

      What’s worse than this inane comment is that 4 people like what this ignorant person posted.

    • nj_v2

      Jackass-Post-of-the-Day Award.

      Congratulations!

      • StilllHere

        Please you won that about 20 hours ago.

    • hennorama

      Good Golly, Godwin’s Guffawing!

  • Tyranipocrit

    the IRS should be investigating every single multinational corp and big industry in America–if they make smoke or dirty water–they better be scrutinized very very carefully–any slip-ups and crush them!!!

    • pete18

       Better yet, they should scrutinize and crush any American that drives a car or takes a bus!!

      • jefe68

        Hyperbolic BS.

        • pete18

           You mean Tyranipocrit’s post? Yes, I agree.

          • Tyranipocrit

             you.  You are determined to destroy the world i know, so people like you should be investigated by the IRS.  Tea bag.

          • notafeminista

            Even better maybe you could, you know make “people like him” all live in one part of the city.  Maybe have them wear a sign or a symbol so you can see “people like him” coming.   
             

          • Tyranipocrit

            ur an idiot.

          • pete18

            Pretty funny coming from a guy who doesn’t seem to know how to spell, punctuate or capitalize properly.

          • pete18

             An example of your superior empathy, no doubt.

          • Tyranipocrit

            that is right. now we understand each other.

      • Tyranipocrit

         dumb.  but there is no need for buses not to be powered by renewable sources–solar and even on rail–street cars.  Cars powered by fossil fuels should be taxed significantly–the tax burden should fall on the industry the heaviest but with every consumer as well.  In 5 years time all cars powered by fossil fuels should be forcibly removed from the roads and recycled–hell or high water!–literally. 

        all industries and consumers will be warned–5 year progressively taxed grace period–and then bam–show is over folks.  Five years to start putting clean green  cars on the road.  Now our biggest problem is rare earth metal mining and lithium batteries, etc.  At the same time we are converting all power-plants to renewable sources, subsidizing homes for weatherization, energy independence, and green roofs, gardens and walls–in cities, suburbia, and the countryside.  Jobs galore!  The economy will sky rocket and get cleaner at the same time.    But I am sure plenty of the people here will whine whine whine about the utopia they live in.

        • pete18

           Given that no voter would ever support this idea I’m sure you will want to force it upon them using the powers of the government. But of course you’re a supporter of the Constitution and laws and can’t imagine that your attitude reflects the classic make-up of dictatorships and tyrannies.

          • Tyranipocrit

            everything i said is constitutional and legal and empathetic and reasonable. No ones rights ere violated. You still have your cars. I am to understand you hate the world and all of nature? i am to understand you love pollution?

          • pete18

             So you believe the American public would support having all fossil fueled cars forcibly removed from the road in five years?

  • nj_v2

    Disqus fail

    • hennorama

      DISQUSting

  • Gregg Smith

    The President of Libya said the attack was carried out by terrorist. The CIA said the same and Petraeus went as far as to say the watered down talking points were useless. There were 5 previous attacks on US interest in Benghazi. The Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Elizabeth Jones told Libya’s ambassador in Washington it was Ansar Al Sharia. The video showed no protest. The emails just released do not talk about the video at all. We were warned about the attack by Libya 3 days before it happened.

    What evidence was there to trump all of that and blame the video? Who on the ground in Benghazi said it was a protest?

    • hennorama

      Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

      Wake me when you figure out that the US facilities and personnel in Benghazi were there largely for CIA operations rather than diplomatic services, and how that has impacted all public discussions of the events that occurred there on Sept. 11 and 12, 2013.

      • Gregg Smith

        It wasn’t long ago when you were very adamant that the “best intelligence” said it was the video that inspired the attack on the consulate. My questions are simple. 

        What evidence was there to trump all of that and blame the video? Who on the ground in Benghazi said it was a protest?

        • Gregg Smith
        • hennorama

          Gregg Smith – TYFYR.

          Allow me to challenge you to overcome your aversion to reading, and to read this entire post. Decide for yourself if you wish to read the linked posts and articles, but please do not use your “Too Long Didn’t Read” excuse. Perhaps you can take notes, and take breaks as needed.

          First, please point out any instance in which I was “very adamant that the ‘best intelligence’ said it was the video that inspired the attack on the consulate”.

          I’ll help you with your search by posting links to some of my comments over time. These are a representative sampling of the far more numerous total:

          From Sept. 2012:
          http://onpoint.wbur.org/2012/09/17/muslim-world#comment-653343391
          http://onpoint.wbur.org/2012/09/17/muslim-world#comment-653907813

          From Oct. 2012:
          http://onpoint.wbur.org/2012/10/19/week-in-the-news-218#comment-688533266
          http://onpoint.wbur.org/2012/10/19/week-in-the-news-218#comment-688568822
          http://onpoint.wbur.org/2012/10/19/week-in-the-news-218#comment-687557555 (please note the mention of the CIA connection)
          http://onpoint.wbur.org/2012/10/19/week-in-the-news-218#comment-688729002
          http://onpoint.wbur.org/2012/10/19/week-in-the-news-218#comment-689189993
          http://onpoint.wbur.org/2012/10/23/foreign-policy-debate#comment-691199366 (Libyan televisionjournalist Firas Abdelhakim said he witnessed Benghazi events)

          From Nov. 2012:
          http://onpoint.wbur.org/2012/11/09/week-in-the-news-221#comment-707798422 (the CIA again)
          http://onpoint.wbur.org/2012/11/16/week-in-the-news-222#comment-712062702
          http://onpoint.wbur.org/2012/11/16/week-in-the-news-222#comment-712829998
          http://onpoint.wbur.org/2012/11/16/week-in-the-news-222#comment-712766951
          http://onpoint.wbur.org/2012/11/16/week-in-the-news-222#comment-712943328
          http://onpoint.wbur.org/2012/11/16/week-in-the-news-222#comment-712994825
          http://onpoint.wbur.org/2012/11/30/week-in-the-news-223#comment-725608342
          http://onpoint.wbur.org/2012/11/30/week-in-the-news-223#comment-726369049 (CIA again)
          http://onpoint.wbur.org/2012/11/30/week-in-the-news-223#comment-727376866

          From Dec. 2012:

          http://onpoint.wbur.org/2012/12/14/week-in-the-news-225#comment-736408386

          From Jan. 2013
          http://onpoint.wbur.org/2013/01/25/week-in-the-news-229#comment-778032433 (CIA again)

          From May 2013:
          http://onpoint.wbur.org/2013/05/09/benghazi-hearings#comment-890907880 (CIA)
          http://onpoint.wbur.org/2013/05/10/week-cleveland-sexual-sanford#comment-893379284
          http://onpoint.wbur.org/2013/05/10/week-cleveland-sexual-sanford#comment-893737412
          http://onpoint.wbur.org/2013/05/10/week-cleveland-sexual-sanford#comment-896423835 (CIA)
          http://onpoint.wbur.org/2013/05/10/week-cleveland-sexual-sanford#comment-899931493 (CIA)

          ————————————-

          As you will be unsuccessful, I’ll next address the remainder of your unedited post, then later address your edited comments.

          Your premise of “they blamed the video” has been disputed in countless posts. Repetition of disputation is dereliction in discussion.

          You asked “Who on the ground in Benghazi said it was a protest?” You will find the answer in the numerous examples of early reporting on Benghazi, which I detail below.

          Your use of the term “consulate” is out of date. The U.S. facility in Benghazi was not a consulate – it was a temporary residential “diplomatic post/facility”. I too had been using the term “consulate” until quite recently, when I noticed that the penultimate version of the “talking points” used the term “diplomatic post”, which was later changed to “diplomatic facility”, as Jay Carney indicated. The term “consulate” implies permanence, and functions that were not included in the activities carried out at the compound that was first attacked. The ARB report described it as “a temporary, residential facility” and said “the U.S. Special Mission in Benghazi was never a consulate and never formally notified to the Libyan government.”

          See:
          http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/202446.pdf (pages 5 and 14).

          ————————————-

          As to the “protest” aspect, here is some of the early reporting about Benghazi:

          From Sept. 11, 2012:

          http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/11/egypt-protest

          The article above reads, in part:

          “In a sign of growing anger over the film, Libyans set fire to the US consulate in the eastern city of Benghazi and fired in the air after a protest against the film. Witnesses said much of the consulate was burned.”

          ————————————-
          From Sept. 12, 2012:

          http://bangordailynews.com/2012/09/12/politics/u-s-ambassador-to-libya-killed-over-film-about-prophet-muhammad-officials-say/

          This article is a repeat of a Washington Post article, and reads in part:

          “The violence in Benghazi followed protests in neighboring Egypt, where a group of protesters scaled the wall of the U.S. Embassy in Cairo on Tuesday evening and entered its outer grounds, pulled down an American flag, then tried to burn it outside the embassy walls, according to witnesses.

          “In both Cairo and Benghazi, protesters said they were demonstrating against a U.S.-released film that insulted the prophet Muhammad.”
          ======
          http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-09-12/world/35497262_1_benghazi-al-qaeda-eastern-libyan-city

          The article above reads, in part:

          “At least an hour before the assault began, a stream of cars was seen moving toward the U.S. Consulate in the eastern Libyan city of Benghazi. By late Tuesday evening, as many as 50 heavily armed militants had gathered outside its high walls.

          “They joined protesters outside the consulate who were demonstrating against an American movie that they believed denigrated the prophet Muhammad. But according to one witness, the new arrivals neither chanted slogans nor carried banners.

          “They said, ‘We are Muslims defending the prophet. We are defending Islam,’ ” Libyan television journalist Firas Abdelhakim said in an interview.”

          ======

          http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/13/world/middleeast/us-envoy-to-libya-is-reported-killed.html

          The article above reads, in part:

          “Fighters involved in the assault, which was spearheaded by an Islamist brigade formed during last year’s uprising against Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, said in interviews during the battle that they were moved to attack the mission by anger over a 14-minute, American-made video that depicted the Prophet Muhammad, Islam’s founder, as a villainous, homosexual and child-molesting buffoon. Their attack followed by just a few hours the storming of the compound surrounding the United States Embassy in Cairo by an unarmed mob protesting the same video. On Wednesday, new crowds of protesters gathered outside the United States Embassies in Tunis and Cairo.”
          ======

          http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2012/09/20129112108737726.html

          The article above reads, in part:

          “The US ambassador to Libya and three other American staffers died on Tuesday night in an attack on the US consulate in the eastern city of Benghazi, US officials have said.

          “An armed mob attacked and set fire to the consulate building during a protest against an amateur film deemed offensive to Islam’s prophet, Muhammad, after similar protests in Egypt’s capital.”
          ======

          http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/09/12/egyptian-protesters-scale-us-embassy-wall-in-cairo/

          The article above reads, in part:

          “URGENT: A Untied [sic] States envoy and three others were reportedly killed in an attack on the American embassy in Libya, unconfirmed reports say.

          “Protesters angered over a film that ridiculed Islam’s Prophet Muhammad fired gunshots and burned down the U.S. consulate in the eastern Libyan city of Benghazi, killing one American diplomat, witnesses and the State Department said. In Egypt, protesters scaled the walls of the U.S. embassy in Cairo and replaced an American flag with an Islamic banner.”

          “It was the first such assaults on U.S. diplomatic facilities in either country, at a time when both Libya and Egypt are struggling to overcome the turmoil following the ouster of their longtime leaders, Muammar Qaddafi and Hosni Mubarak in uprisings last year.

          “The protests in both countries were sparked by outrage over a film ridiculing Muhammad produced by an American in California and being promoted by an extreme anti-Muslim Egyptian Christian campaigner in the United States. Excerpts from the film dubbed into Arabic were posted on YouTube.”
          ————————————-

          From Sept. 13, 2012:

          http://www.npr.org/2012/09/13/161050137/how-benghazi-is-reacting-to-the-deadly-attacks

          The article above (a transcript of an audio segment) reads, in part:

          “At another compound in Benghazi, Libya, American authorities are investigating the attack that killed the U.S. ambassador and many others. Hadeel Al-Shalchi of Reuters has been talking with authorities and protestors.

          “HADEEL AL-SHALCHI: There was definitely a protest planned around the consulate to mimic what happened in Egypt. Security even told me that, you know, people who were sympathetic with the cause from the security may have even allowed, you know, people to riot very close to the consulate.

          “What protesters tell me happened is that there was an exchange of fire. Who shot the first shot either from inside of the embassy or from outside is still murky. What we know is that when the shooting started or the clash started between the two sides, all hell broke loose. People went back home, brought all their weapons. Brigades that are not involved with the government or not recognized by the government brought in their heavy weapons. RPGs were shot in the air. And that’s when it became very chaotic. And that’s when also security forces were outnumbered and out-weaponed, and the storming was allowed to happen.“

          AND further,

          “INSKEEP: One other thing Hadeel Al-Shalchi: How have Libyans in Benghazi there responded to the attacks, this news spread of that the ambassador particularly had been killed?

          “AL-SHALCHI: In Benghazi at the consulate, the consulate is now not secure at all, like, you can walk in and out of it. And people all day yesterday were doing that. They would come, sort of take a stroll inside the grounds, you know, take pictures and little videos of the damage.

          “The majority of those people said two things. They said, first of all, why did the United States allow something like this movie to happen? Because at the end of the day, almost everybody here believes that it was a reaction to the movie that – and they believe that the United States had a responsibility to stop the production or…

          “INSKEEP: This is a film that was spreading on the Internet that was seen as insulting the Prophet Muhammad. Go on.

          “AL-SHALCHI: Exactly. And so they said, why did this happen? But in the next breath, they say: But we don’t condone this kind of thing. There are civilized ways to show and express our anger, and this is not one of them. This should never have happened.”
          ————————————-

          As to the remainder of your edited comments:

          In the first place, my reference to the CIA involvement in Benghazi is neither new, nor is it “strategery” [sic]. I noted the CIA involvement in multiple comments as far back as October 2012, shortly after Rep. Jason Chaffetz “accidentally blew the CIA’s cover” in a televised public hearing.

          Second, I have never written anything like “the video is suddenly not important but they had sensitive information to keep under wraps.”

          You wrote about “Obama’s narrative” and “that narrative” and “the narrative” and that “they lied” and “They made up the video meme”. You mentioned only “Obama“ and “Hillary” so one might conclude these two people are the “they” which you, of course, do not define.

          Who are these unnamed and amorphous “they” sir? Please list “them” all by name.

          Your words are a conspiracy theory, which would require conspirators, as I wrote before, back in November 2012, as follows:

          [As expected, you provide no evidence of any sort of conspiracy, which one would need to conclude was in place if, as you claim:

          [A. Amb. Rice's "may not have personally lied" but instead "was sent out to lie" and her comments were instead part of some "big lie" or "a big coordinated lie," or "the cover-up and the attempt to plant seeds of misdirection before an election."

          [You say this "big lie" is:

          ["We have decimated al Qaeda." PLEASE demonstrate how this statement is a lie.

          [B. Some unnamed party or parties would have needed prior knowledge of some definitive differences between the CIA talking points and whatever you think is "the truth" in order for Amb. Rice to have been "...sent out to lie."

          [Please demonstrate how any of this is true, in any way other than 20/20 hindsight. Tell us who was/is part of this conspiracy/cover-up/big lie. Was the CIA involved? The DOD? The DNI? What about Congressional members who got the same CIA talking points? Is it the media? The President? The entire administration? Show us how they got together, and how Amb. Rice was "sent out to lie" on behalf of the conspirators.]

          See:
          http://onpoint.wbur.org/2012/11/30/week-in-the-news-223#comment-727376866

          TYAFYR.

          • Gregg Smith

            Gee Wiz. It seems to me you believe the more you write the more right you are but the truth requires few words. I wish you would get to it. So there’s that.

            I’m not going to read every comment you ever made nor the ones you picked for me. I did click a couple (I don’t know why) and at least the the first few were not replies to me. I recall you defending Rice to me when I said she was sent out to lie. I recall you saying to me she did not lie. She said they were working with the best intelligence at the time. You defended her remarks. You disputed me when I said the youtube hits were nil before the attack and gave links you thought disproved it. You talked social media and this and that. Rice said with certainty it was the video and you adamantly insisted she did not lie. Maybe you want me to quote you as saying it was inspired by the video and you think the distinction has a difference. Whatever, but you know in your heart you were her staunchest defender around here. But who cares? If you say you never said any of that then fine.

            You wrote:”Your premise of “they blamed the video” has been disputed in countless posts.” 

            If you are saying they (Obama, Hillary, Rice, etc) did not blame the video then I don’t know how to respond other than to say you are alone. I have no interest in even considering that a serious claim. I must have misunderstood you.

            Yes, I’ve read your pasted paragraph before and have been spicing my comments with the word “consulate” and anticipating it. I understand accuracy and you are correct but it is irrelevant and in this instance I believe you are using it as an excuse for not defending it like a consulate or embassy. I could be wrong, maybe your just being anal and I say that with all affection. I get like that too on certain matters.  If President Obama gets on a two start Cessna the plane is deemed to be Air Force One. That is true with any plane he is on. Our Ambassador was murdered in a planned terrorist attack by Ansar Al Sharia. I don’t care where he was or what the building is labeled. Murdering our Ambassador is an act of war. BTW, I’m not advocating war jut stating the obvious.

            Now, here’s what I’ll do but it’s most likely a waste of time. I’ll end this here and if you have a reply keep it short. I already wrote that it’s fine if you want to say you never defended what Rice said. And I have no interest in reading a book about distinctions without differences regarding whether you said it or just endorsed Rice saying it. So just declare victory and move on. I’ll reply separately to the other links one at a time above this one (to avoid the format thing) because it’s makes my point so well but I may not go through them all before skipping to the end which I have not read yet. I may be too exhausted. I’m not spending all day on this, your homework assignment are tedious. This will be my wordiest reply.

          • hennorama

            Gregg Smith –

            Thank you for not pointing out any instance in which I was “very adamant that the ‘best intelligence’ said it was the video that inspired the attack on the consulate”. Your use of “I recall” without any support is not responsive. You not only cannot support your own original statement, you cannot support your own recollections.

            As stated, repetition of disputation is dereliction in discussion.

            Succinctly, I disagree.

          • Gregg Smith

            You know in your heart I’m right. I don’t need no stinkin’ quote.

          • hennorama

            Gregg Smith – I disagree.

          • Gregg Smith

            My first reply is underneath this one for formatting reasons. They will make more sense to read chronologically from the bottom up. I will begin each with this caveat.

            I will note you ignored my first question which was the main question. The key word was “trump” regarding the few facts I laid out. It’s really the crux of the issue. I’d rather you hit all the points , bam bam bam, than write a book on one or two. I try to do that. Just a suggestion.

            At first I thought you has misquoted my second question because the links don’t answer it. But you did not. I don’t know how I could have been more clear. I wrote:
            “Who on the ground in Benghazi said it was a protest?” In other words, where did the “best intelligence” come from. We know who told us it was terrorist.

            I cited people on the ground in Benghazi who said it was a coordinated attack or warned us about the upcoming “spontaneous” uprising. Your first link is from the UK Guardian and is mostly about Cairo.

            The last paragraph you quote begins: In a sign of growing anger over the film…”

            The author appears to be (not sure, it doesn’t say) from the AP in Cairo and that is an opinion. It is in no way backed up by someone on the ground in Benghazi. In fact it is not backed up by anything at all, no evidence whatsoever. There is not even a “sources say”. It does say “Witnesses said much of the consulate was burned”. So all we have from people on the ground in Benghazi is verification that there was a fire. We knew that. We have the video, it shows no protest BTW.

            There are other links that make other points I have better so I’ll save them.

          • hennorama

            Gregg Smith – Succinctly, I disagree.

          • Gregg Smith

            Dodge.

          • hennorama

            Gregg Smith – In brief, I disagree.

          • Gregg Smith

            My first reply is underneath this one for formatting reasons. They will make more sense to read chronologically from the bottom up. I will begin each with this caveat.

            The second article from the Washington Post, the best I can tell, is co written by a Cairo corespondent for the paper. Not Libya. The headline concludes with the words, “officials say”. These officials include Hillary and Victoria Nuland, hence the headline “U.S. ambassador to Libya killed over film about prophet Muhammad, officials say” 

            That’s my point, Hillary was spreading the meme. 

            The people on the ground give us this: 

            “In both Cairo and Benghazi, protesters said they were demonstrating against a U.S.-released film that insulted the prophet Muhammad.”

            Was it 1000 in Cairo and 1 in Benghazi, because we now no there was no protest in Benghazi. Who were the unnamed “protesters” and where are the quotes? Or did the guy behind the desk in Washington just write it without attribution?

            The article also quotes Libyan officials (in Libya, on the ground, in charge, plugged in) heres what they say:

            “Libyan government officials confirmed to wire services and reporters on the ground  that Stevens and the others were fleeing the consulate when a rocket-propelled grenade struck their vehicle.”

            Spontaneous protests over a video do not typically include rocket propelled grenades firing at diplomatic vehicles with murderous intent, coordinated terrorist attacks do.

          • hennorama

            Gregg Smith – In brief, I disagree.

          • Gregg Smith

            Dodge.

          • hennorama

            Gregg Smith – In short, I disagree.

          • Gregg Smith

            My first reply is underneath this one for formatting reasons. They will make more sense to read chronologically from the bottom up. I will begin each with this caveat.

            The second Washington Post article is 3 pages, damn you… or maybe not, did you read it all? Or analyze it closely?

            The article is chock full of references to terrorist. Just read it, I’m not going to give you 100 quotes but they are there. The people on the ground knew and said the killings were a planned terrorist attack.

            Again the writers weren’t in Benghazi. The quote you used did not help your position. The heavily armed militants were a clue. The writers, who were not there, wrote: “they joined protesters…” No quotes, no attribution to anyone, no explanation. Ah, but the word “Protesters” was a link. Clicking on it sends you to a photo gallery of 37 pictures of protest in Pakistan, Egypt and Yemen. Not a single one is of Benghazi.
             
            But you did succeed in naming someone on the ground in Benghazi who said there was a protest. However that did not answer my question. I wrote “it was the protest” meaning it was the protest that incited the killings and I asked who said so. I did not ask who said “there” was a protest. The meaning of “it” was abundantly clear when you consider my second question after reading my first question. 

            You ignored my first question: “What evidence was there to trump all of that and blame the video?”

            But I digress. The person on the ground  (from page 2) who said there was a protest was Wanis Al Sharif. 

            Wanis Al Sharif was relieved of his duties by the Libyan government precisely because he tried to blame the video.

            http://www.libyaherald.com/2012/09/17/wanis-al-sharif-sacked-as-deputy-interior-minister-for-eastern-region/

          • hennorama

            Gregg Smith – In short, I disagree.

          • Gregg Smith

            Dodge. 

          • hennorama

            Gregg Smith – you have a history of ignoring, getting snarky, changing the subject or making some crazy excuse when cornered in the past.

          • Gregg Smith

            No sir, I have a history of honest debate.

          • hennorama

            I disagree.

            What is the basis for your statement?

          • Gregg Smith

            You never say that when I refer to you as she. I think I know you are female. I don’t care. It’s a generic phrase.

          • hennorama

            Gregg Smith – I disagree.

            First, the vast majority of your usage of the words “she” and “her” when referring to [hennorama] are indirect references made in comments to others and not to [hennorama].

            Second, as it gets tiresome pointing out the large number of assumptions made by you and others, I rarely remark on those not made directly to [hennorama]. Your prior use of “Dude” was allowed to pass without comment as that has become a generic phrase, especially among younger people.

            Third, if you “don’t care” why did you reply?

            Fourth, I do not accept that “sir” or even “No sir” is a generic phrase. Had you used the colloquial “No sirree bob” I would have let it pass without comment, as that is a generic phrase.

            One realizes you are from the South and the usage of “Sir” and “Ma’am” is second nature. However, I daresay you would not have used those words had you been addressing in person someone “[you] think [you] know” is female. Be honest with yourself, Gregg Smith.

            Finally, as to things you describe as “I think I know” – in this case you have a higher chance of being accurate – about 50%.

          • Gregg Smith

            My first reply is underneath this one for formatting reasons. They will make more sense to read chronologically from the bottom up. I will begin each with this caveat.

            Skipping to the end but your wild goose chase is getting old fast.

            Your strategery is new in that you are now saying you did not adamantly endorse Rice’s comment saying she didn’t lie. Now you seem to be saying the lie was justified for National security reasons. 

            You wrote:”Second, I have never written anything like “the video is suddenly not important but they had sensitive information to keep under wraps.”

            What was this?

            http://onpoint.wbur.org/2013/05/17/week-in-the-news-irs-ap#comment-901250846

            All of my comment was dismissed as Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

            And you know who they are, Obama, Hillary, Rice and the administration in general.

            Are you really saying Al Qaeda is decimated? And you want proof they are not? Really? 

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_al-Qaeda_attacks

            The frequency is going up. They are alive and well. I can’t believe you asked the question.

            And B) Petraeus said the watered down talking points were useless. Did you read the emails? there’s bookoos of evidence.

            Obama is the lie. Hillary is the lie. DHS is the lie. The DNI is a proven puppet out of the loop. DOJ is the lie. It’s all a big lie and the media dutifully passes it on and it’s swallowed whole.

            Okay, this is getting ridiculous. You are all over the place. My original comment was simple. The best evidence within a couple of days after the attack, without a doubt, was that this was a coordinated terrorist attack.

          • hennorama

            Gregg Smith – Two words – I disagree.

          • Gregg Smith

            Dodge.

          • hennorama

            Gregg Smith – Succinctly, I disagree.

          • Gregg Smith

            The NYT article, not written from Libya, wrote this preceding your quote: “American and European officials said that while many details about the attack remained unclear, the assailants seemed organized, well trained and heavily armed, and they appeared to have at least some level of advance planning.  But the officials cautioned that it was too soon to tell whether the attack was related to the anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks.”

            “Officials cautioned”, who Hillary?

            The article goes on to say: “Col. Wolfgang Pusztai, who until early August was Austria’s defense attaché to Libya and visited the country every month, said in an e-mail that he believed the attack was “deliberately planned and executed” by about a core group of 30 to 40 assailants who were “well trained and organized.”

            And:

            “It is unclear if television images of Islamist protesters may have inspired the attack in Benghazi…”
            Unclear best evidence?

          • hennorama

            Gregg Smith – I disagree.

          • Gregg Smith

            Dodge.

          • hennorama

            Gregg Smith – Two words – I disagree.

      • pete18

         That’s a pretty lame excuse. How does that reality, if it’s true, in any way allow the president and his administration to lie to and mislead the public and the families of the dead about what happened?

      • Bruce94

        Thanks for pointing this out.  I mistakenly referred to the CIA facility initially as a “consulate” before realizing that it was never designated or used that way.  I think there are implications insofar as the security or lack of it is concerned due to its status as a CIA compound vs consulate or embassy. If you have the time or inclination, maybe you could look up what some of those implications might be (e.g. availability of Marines or other forces to respond to an attack).

        • hennorama

          Bruce94 – TY for your response.

          There is one sentence in the unclassified ARB report that sums things up quite well:

          “The unique circumstances surrounding the creation of the mission in Benghazi as a temporary mission outside the realm of permanent diplomatic posts resulted in significant disconnects and support gaps.”

          The Benghazi post (designated “U.S. Special Mission Benghazi”) was a temporary facility and was therefore excepted from the various security requirements that were implemented in 1999, under the Secure Embassy Construction and Counterterrorism Act (SECCA) and the Overseas Security Policy Board (OSPB).

          The ARB unclassified report says the following on page 5:

          “The insufficient Special Mission security platform was at variance with the appropriate Overseas Security Policy Board (OSPB) standards with respect to perimeter and interior security. Benghazi was also severely under-resourced with regard to certain needed security equipment, although DS funded and installed in 2012 a number of physical security upgrades. These included heightening the outer perimeter wall, safety grills on safe area egress windows, concrete jersey barriers, manual drop-arm vehicle barriers, a steel gate for the Villa C safe area, some locally manufactured steel doors, sandbag fortifications, security cameras, some additional security lighting, guard booths, and an Internal Defense Notification System.

          “Special Mission Benghazi’s uncertain future after 2012 and its “non-status” as a temporary, residential facility made allocation of resources for security and personnel more difficult, and left responsibility to meet security standards to the working-level in the field, with very limited resources.”

          -AND-

          From pages 30 & 31 of the ARB report:

          “Another key driver behind the weak security platform in Benghazi was the decision to treat Benghazi as a temporary, residential facility, not officially notified to the host government, even though it was also a full time office facility. This resulted in the Special Mission compound being excepted from office facility standards and accountability under the Secure Embassy Construction and Counterterrorism Act of 1999 (SECCA) and the Overseas Security Policy Board (OSPB). Benghazi’s initial platform in November 2011 was far short of OSPB standards and remained so even in September 2012, despite multiple field-expedient upgrades funded by DS. (As a temporary, residential facility, SMC was not eligible for OBO-funded security upgrades.) A comprehensive upgrade and risk-mitigation plan did not exist, nor was a comprehensive security review conducted by Washington for Benghazi in 2012. The unique circumstances surrounding the creation of the mission in Benghazi as a temporary mission outside the realm of permanent diplomatic posts resulted in significant disconnects and support gaps.”

          The ARB Report:
          http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/202446.pdf

          The ARB report characterized as “misplaced” the Special Mission Benghazi’s reliance on “the armed but poorly skilled Libyan February 17 Martyrs’ Brigade (February 17) militia members and unarmed, locally contracted Blue Mountain Libya (BML) guards for security support…” and found that at the time of the attacks “February 17 militia members had stopped accompanying Special Mission vehicle movements in protest over salary and working hours.” (see page 5 of the report)

          There were a variety of reductions in security prior to the attacks, as have been widely reported.

          The ARB report recommendations use the word “security” 24 times, as one might expect.

          As to the Marines, in recommendation 11. on page 10,

          “The Board supports the State Department’s initiative to request additional Marines and expand the Marine Security Guard (MSG) Program – as well as corresponding requirements for staffing and funding. The Board also recommends that the State Department and DoD identify additional flexible MSG structures and request further resources for the Department and DoD to provide more capabilities and capacities at higher risk posts.”

          As I wrote last week and earlier, “We need to improve security at our diplomatic missions, and that is the single most likely outcome of these events.”

          TY again for your response.

          • Bruce94

             Thanks, Hen for the info. I usually try to reply to anyone who takes the time to provide a response to one of my posts or inquiries.  This weekend I’ve been mostly out of pocket. 

            As your summary indicates, the ARB identified inadequate resources as a major factor contributing to the vulnerability of our diplomats at Benghazi.  In their rush to politicize the tragedy there, IMO the Chair of the House Oversight & Govt. Reform Committee investigating Benghazi, Rep. Darrell Issa, as well as Romney surrogate, Jason Chaffetz, cannot avoid the appearance of intellectual dishonesty and hypocrisy given their history of voting to cut funding requested by Obama for increasing security at our embassies and missions around the world.  You can’t have it both ways–decrying diplomatic security lapses and defeating efforts to improve security and provide the necessary resources at those facilities.

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        glen beck was saying that right after it happened.

    • ExcellentNews

      In other scandalous developments, President Obama put his left sock first when he woke up. That is a proof that he is a commie muslim hell-bent on destroying America. Let’s make a big deal of it, investigate it, fill the media with it, fill the Internet with it, and chant “impeach” on the airwaves. Yeah, we need to get our priorities straight in this country…

      • Gregg Smith

        I don’t care about his socks, he’s not a commie, he’s not a Muslim. But he is destroying our country. 

        • 1Brett1

          But he’s a Socialist who’s deliberately setting out to systematically and fundamentally destroy our country, though, amiright?

          • Gregg Smith

            Dude, I just wrote it in the comment you are replying to. How many times must I say it?

            “But he is destroying our country.”

            I never said he was a Socialist and in fact have denied it… to you… many times. 

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            i have heard oboma calling for more national socialism in speeches, especially when he was puching the obomacare, i am surprised more people did not pick up on that

    • TomK_in_Boston

      Big deal.

      Were you this excited when W went clearin’ brush in Crawford after being told “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in USA”? I want to know because I think it’s reasonable to get all the facts about Ben-zagy, but I won’t listen to hypocrites.

      • Gregg Smith

        That’s just weird.

        • TomK_in_Boston

          I agree, it’s weird to have one’s knickers in a twist over benzagy if one thought it was A-OK to ignore “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in USA”.

      • William

         Bill Clinton said there were WMD’s and got his Iraq Liberation Act passed. GW was just following Bill’s advice.

        • 1Brett1

          Ah, Republican leaders don’t have to own their presidencies, just Democratic ones do…I see. 

        • TomK_in_Boston

          LOL, you confused justifying negligence over 9/11 with justifying negligence over invading iraq. I know it’s nice to have a TP for every occasion, but you still have to parrot the right one!

    • 1Brett1

      What emails? Do you mean the emails originally leaked to ABC news? Those, it turns out, were not actual emails but Republican congressional staffers’ creations leaked to ABC news then carried as “fact” by several news outlets…You’ve been talking about the “just released emails” for a few days now; it would seem that by now you’d have heard that they have turned out to be bogus.

      And, there, is a genuine scandal, there.

  • hennorama

    Yesterday, I posted an excerpt of a Los Angeles Times article about CO2 concentrations nearing/exceeding 400 ppm at Mauna Loa, Hawaii:

    “NOAA revised its May 9 reading at the Mauna Loa observatory in Hawaii, saying it remained fractions of a point below the level of 400 ppm, at 399.89.”

    See:
    http://www.latimes.com/news/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-carbon-dioxide-400-20130513,0,7196126.story

    As an offset to that bad news, here’s an encouraging example of humans doing their bit to reduce emissions, generate green energy, and get a good return on their investment, all at the same time.

    Plus, there’s a Boston connection.

    =======
    From the Dept. Of Good News Found In The Same Edition Of The LA Times:

    “A powerful use for spoiled food” (the print edition used the headline “Brown Food, Green Energy”)

    Kroger Co.’s anaerobic digester in Compton takes unsold food from Ralphs and Food 4 Less and converts it into 13 million kilowatt-hours of electricity a year.

    May 15, 2013 By Tiffany Hsu (excerpt only below):

    “What happens to the 40% of food produced but never eaten in the U.S. each year, the mounds of perfect fruit passed over by grocery store shoppers, the tons of meat and milk left to expire?

    “At Ralphs, one of the oldest and largest supermarket chains on the West Coast, it helps keep the power on.

    “In a sprawling Compton distribution center that the company shares with its fellow Kroger Co. subsidiary Food 4 Less, organic matter otherwise destined for a landfill is rerouted instead into the facility’s energy grid. Though many grocery stores have tried to cut down on food waste and experiment with alternative energy, Kroger says it’s the first supermarket company in the country to do both simultaneously.

    “The technology that helps transform moldy chicken and stale bread into clean electricity is known as an anaerobic digester system. At the 59-acre Compton site, which serves 359 Southern California stores, more than 100 onlookers gathered Wednesday to watch the system go to work.

    “Several chest-high trash bins containing a feast of limp waffles, wilting flowers, bruised mangoes and plastic-wrapped steak sat in an airy space laced with piping. Stores send food unable to be donated or sold to the facility, where it is dumped into a massive grinder — cardboard and plastic packaging included.

    “After being pulverized, the mass is sent to a pulping machine, which filters out inorganic materials such as glass and metal and mixes in hot wastewater from a nearby dairy creamery to create a sludgy substance.

    “Mike Vriens, Ralphs vice president of industrial engineering, describes the goop as a “juicy milkshake” of trash.

    “From there, the mulch is piped into a 250,000-gallon staging tank before being steadily fed into a 2-million-gallon silo. The contraption essentially functions as a multi-story stomach.

    “Inside, devoid of oxygen, bacteria munch away on the liquid refuse, naturally converting it into methane gas. The gas, which floats to the top of the tank, is siphoned out to power three on-site turbine engines.

    “The 13 million kilowatt-hours of electricity they produce per year could power more than 2,000 California homes over the period, according to Kroger.

    “Excess water from the digester is pumped out, purified and sent into the industrial sewer. Leftover sludge becomes nutrient-rich organic fertilizer, enough to nourish 8,000 acres of soil.

    “The so-called closed-loop system was developed by Boston start-up Feed Resource Recovery and offsets more than 20% of the distribution center’s energy demands — all without producing any pungent odors.

    “The program helps Kroger reduce its waste by 150 tons a day. The trash otherwise would have been sent to Bakersfield to be composted, hauled away six times a day by diesel trucks traveling 500,000 miles a year.

    “Kroger won’t say exactly how much it spent on the anaerobic digester but estimates that it will offer an 18.5% return on the company’s investment. The project, over its lifetime, could help the grocer save $110 million. The supermarket giant is considering similar
    technologies for its La Habra and Riverside facilities and other Kroger locations nationwide.”

    See:
    http://articles.latimes.com/2013/may/15/business/la-fi-ralphs-energy-20130516

    Humans can indeed alter their activities to make an impact.

    Well done, Kroger!

    • TomK_in_Boston

      Yes hennorama, the most important news of the week is CO2 hitting 400 ppm, but board is far more interested in political attacks.

      In the geological record at 400 ppm the planet is far hotter and the sea level is far higher (10-20m!) then the present. We could be at a turning point in the history of the human race. But an amazing number of people swallow the propaganda from the fossil fuel industry. If they even get beyond the conspiracy theories they take refuge in pseudoscience that assures them things will be different this time. I’m afraid not.

    • WorriedfortheCountry

       hennorama,
          The Kroger story you related sounds like a good solution.  I am curious if the 18.5% return is before or after state and Federal tax breaks and incentives.  I am wondering if this solution is scalable to other parts of the country.

      • hennorama

        WftC – Thank you for your response.

        Kroger’s digester/generator project may be scalable, but I am not an expert in this area. As to the tax advantages of the project – same thing.

        To get more answers, you might contact:

        tiffany.hsu@latimes.com (the author of the article)

        Nick Whitman, president of Feed Resource Recovery is on Linkedin – http://www.linkedin.com/pub/nick-whitman/5/837/307

        The company is here: http://www.feedresourcerecovery.com/

        Kroger might take a bit more work: Try here, since the facility is in CA:

        Ralphs Division
        (California)
        Kendra Doyel
        310-884-4141
        Kendra.Doyel@ralphs.com

        OR the corporate person:

        Keith Dailey
        Director, Media Relations/Corporate Communications
        Office: 513-762-1304
        Cell: 513-257-4955
        Email: keith.dailey@kroger.com

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        actually it is. these are very popular with VT dairy farmers and actually produce excess energy for the grid. unless you are useinf organic feedstock though its still CO2 releasing.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      when they burn the methane it releases CO2 back into the atmosphere.

      • hennorama

        Futo Buddy – indeed. Of course, methane is the primary component of “natural gas”, which is the cleanest burning fossil fuel. You also need to understand that the methane would be produced regardless, as the food waste decomposed, and that methane is a far more potent greehouse gas than carbon dioxide. This system captures the methane and then burns it, rather than allowing it to simply enter the atmosphere. This is a good thing.

        See:http://ecowatch.com/pubs/junjul08/whyis.htm

        In addition, the reduction of emissions by reducing the number of trips of the vehicles hauling this stuff to the landfill must also be considered.

        “Chemists would write the following to represent the combustion of methane:

        CH4[g] + 2 O2[g] —> CO2[g] + 2 H2O[l] + 891 kJ

        That is, one molecule of methane (the [g] referred to above means it is gaseous form) combined with two oxygen atoms, react to form a carbon dioxide molecule, two water molecules (the [l] above means that the water molecules are in liquid form, although it is usually evaporated during the reaction to give off steam) and 891 kilajoules (kJ) of energy.”

        Source:http://www.naturalgas.org/overview/combust.asp

        For comparison purposes this is how much carbon dioxide and water vapor is released at combustion between for methane, ethanol, and gasoline:

        Methane – CO2 + 2 H2O
        Ethanol – 4 CO2 + 6 H2O
        Gasoline – 8 CO2 + 9 H2O

        See also:http://www.naturalgas.org/environment/naturalgas.asp#greenhouse

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          i think there are several efficiencies in this system but it does still release CO2. thats all i was saying 

  • ExcellentNews

    “Whozza gonna go to jail for that?” asks Mr. Boehner, chief shill for the oligarchy, talking about the so called “scandals”. Well, let’s talk about SCANDALS.

    Who is going to go to jail for the 2 TRILLION of taxpayer money given by Bush to crony contractors under the pretext of “fighting the terrorists”? Much of that money that belonged to the American public is now safely stashed in private offshore accounts. Not to mention the 5,000 American and 500,000 Iraqi casualties in the process…

    Who is going to go to jail for the 15,000,000 high-wage US jobs and industrial infrastructure offshored to slave-labor countries since 2000? The oligarchy gained nearly 8 TRILLION in tax-free wealth, and we got a disappearing middle class subsisting on McJobs.

    Who is going for jail for a “banking” system ran amok by corruption, and whose chief products are (a) tens of millions of Americans living in a state of indentured servitude, and (b) handful of obscenely rich “investors” who pull the strings of the Republican party (and many Democrats too, to be fair).

    Have you noticed how bankers, “job-creating” oligarchs, and Republican corporate shills in Congress are working in concert, doing every dirty trick they can to prevent the Obama administration the people voted in 2008 and 2012 from governing?

    Peons! Wake up while there is still time, because democracy in America is an endangered species. The people who should be in jail are the corporate paymasters and oligarchy pals of the Republican party. Their misbegotten gains needs to be put back in America and invested in the rebuilding of the country.

    And yes, let’s get the IRS to investigate how much money from Saudi Arabia, China and the Cayman Islands is flowing into the so called “public interest” Tea Party groups… 

    • William

       Obama does not want to govern but would rather just campaign.

      • 1Brett1

        So glad you are relying on talking points instead of thinking a little bit…it is the weekend after all

        • William

           Even the WaPo has been critical of Obama lack of desire to govern.

          • StilllHere

            I challenge you to find anything in Obama’s legislative record to show he is at all capable of real leadership.  In both the Illinois Assembly and the Senate, he was a non-entity.  We should not be surprised by the lack of leadership the last 5 years+

          • 1Brett1

            I challenge anyone to find a single comment of yours on this forum since you’ve come here that isn’t regurgitated pablum, too.

          • Gregg Smith

            Not up to the challenge huh? It should be easy.

          • 1Brett1

            I guess that would at least keep you in a Sunday’s worth of “debating” material…sorry, you’ll have to fritter your time away ameliorating your “debate” frothing tendencies in other ways.

          • Gregg Smith

            Sorry, light blog day. I had an afternoon gig a couple of hours away.

          • 1Brett1

            Yeah, but you can bet they haven’t broad-brushed it, reduced it to its lowest-common denominator, wrapped it up in one big bow, and force-fed it to you neocon types like cake to a bunch of recalcitrant children at a birthday party waiting for the next sugar fix.

    • StilllHere

      Please adjust your tin hat, the signals appear to be distorted.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      oh yeah it was all the pubs and the dems fought em every step! seems a lot more like they are in cahoots

  • pete18
  • Gregg Smith

    I suppose I made my point about Benghazi judging by the numerous replies. I have been focused on the cover up and anytime the American people are lied to in such dramatic fashion it’s huge but this time the crime is worse than the cover-up. But to be clear the cover up was hideous. It makes Watergate look like Disneyland.

    Stevens was begging for security and was denied. When the attack came the decision was made to tell all potential assets to stand down. It was assumed there was not enough time but in the end there might have been. We don’t hang our military out to dry. We do everything we can to make sure no soldier is left behind. We didn’t in this case.

    There is a much larger picture here. Our entire civilization, as we know it, is at risk. War has been declared and that means the fight has begun whether we act or not. Somebody will win, period. The war on terror has never been about something as small and petty as revenge. That’s why Bin Laden’s death was symbolic, albeit important, symbolism. It did not make us safer. The only answer is to change the face of the entire Middle East; to turn enemies into allies; to change hearts… for generations. That’s a tall order but does it matter? What is the alternative?

    There are hotspots all over. There are tons of examples. But the topic I am addressing (omitting many for the sake of focus) is Libya. Gaddafi is gone and we have someone in place we can work with. We had a passionate Ambassador beloved by the Libyans striving for something better. He was murdered. Who is their advocate now? The new President said and did all the right things, spectacularly so in comparison to the past. He correctly said the impetus was not the video and was a terrorist attack. He tried to help. That’s Huge. The Libyan president was on our side. Please think about that. It is essential. We have an ally where we had a sworn enemy. 

    Obama did not embrace the situation. He stuck a finger in his eye. He blamed America and lied to do it. This is awful. 

    • JONBOSTON

      Benghazi is symptomatic of the underlying sickness and rotting of our body politic. Four heroic and decent  Americans died, including an American ambassador who reportedly was brutally sodomized. Yet the American public still doesn’t know what happened, why it happened , and most importantly what was our pretend Commander-in-Chief doing during the attack. At the very least, the families of the dead and the American public deserve to know the truth even if our mainstream media feels otherwise.

      • brettearle

         Your Piling-it-On outrage is, itself, an Outrage.

        • notafeminista

          Indeed.  How dare he express himself in a thoughtful and civil manner.  Barbarian.

          • 1Brett1

            How dare brettearle criticize another person’s comment!! You then have every right to mischaracterize brettearle’s comment as being something it is not so you can get your jabs in unnecessarily. 

          • notafeminista

            One thousand pardons.  Brettearle wasn’t implying that jonboston ought not to have bothered posting at all?

          • 1Brett1

            My comment was to you, not brettearle, and your inaccurate characterization of his reply. Pay attention.

          • notafeminista

            Yes.  As I asked (so as to clarify my tragic mischaracterization) brettearle was not implying that jonboston should not have posted at all?

            Please..explain it to me.

          • 1Brett1

            Explain to you why you don’t think it was appropriate for brettearle to criticize JONBOSTON’s comment?  I can’t say what’s in your mind, but could your ostensible desire to align yourself with those whom you feel you’re ideologically in agreement be a possible reason?

          • Gregg Smith

            Man, these libs are losing it.

          • jefe68

            You prove time and again, that for someone who thinks she is smart, that you are quite the opposite.

        • JONBOSTON

          I usually ignore or laugh at your comments since they’re typical of a core Democrat  constituency: the no-information voter  (I’m trying to say it politely).

          • jefe68

            Wonderful. You have all the finess of a bull in a China shop. Plus you leave the same amount of BS on the  floor when you leave.

          • brettearle

            You sound like someone who believes that Hillary Clinton had Vince Foster vanquished.

      • jefe68

        Oh please, get a grip.

        • Gregg Smith

          Ask Lara Logan if terrorist act like that. Or Nick Berg, oh wait, can’t ask him.

    • brettearle

      Gregg…..

      3 days after the Benghazi Attack, the President snapped the director of the National Counterterrorism Center into action.

      Look it up.

      At this point, if you are not willing to concede that the cover-up is, for the large part, a political ruse, then there is nothing I can do to convince you that the Sky is not Falling.

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        only 3 days? whats all this rukus about then?

      • Gregg Smith

        Yes, the cover up is all politics. 

    • 1Brett1

      “But to be clear the cover up was hideous. It makes Watergate look like Disneyland.”

      So, what was told to the public changed as information about the attack became clearer and could be better substantiated, and that was a cover up on par with Watergate? Rice’s talking points turned out soon  after to seem sort of ridiculous, and that is the scandal of all presidential scandals?

      “Stevens was begging for security and was denied. When the attack came the decision was made to tell all potential assets to stand down.”

      Stevens had actually turned down increased security several times at that location in the months before the attack. The reasons for not sending in extra help after the attack broke out have been covered ad nauseam, and the reasons have been proven sound. 

      Obama characterized the attack as an “an act of terror” in the rose garden the next day, but you never mention that, or if you have you were dismissive. Instead, you resort to, “He stuck a finger in his eye. He blamed America and lied to do it. This is awful.” Your disdain for any and all things Obama does isn’t because he’s the worst president in history/is systematically destroying the country, no it’s definitely is for some other reason. No one reading your posts can say for sure what that reason is, it’s just not for the reasons you say.

      • Gregg Smith

        No one died in Watergate. 

        The situation was clear within hours. Rice was sent out to lie 5 days later. Hillary looked the slain heroes parents in the eye and lied. Obama was still lying about it two weeks later.

        And no, he did not characterize the attack as an act of terror. He parsed carefully to cover his ass. 

        I will not tolerate stupid comments. Did I just call you stupid? No. Reread the transcript of the Rose Garden show.

        If being the worst president in my lifetime and destroying the economy in addition to lying about the state of the war on terror and running an administrate  full of thugs isn’t good enough for you then imagine all you want about what I think. 

        • 1Brett1

          No, “the situation” was not clear to all involved within hours, and this so-called “cover up” didn’t cost anyone their lives, but mix up your narrative in a slurry of hyperbole and straw men you’ve honed (often with the help of conservative media) since this happened…it was tired months ago. 

          • Gregg Smith

            Beefing up security when it was asked for, not that it needed to be asked for in that corner of the world on the anniversary of 9/11, would have blown the happy narrative of Libya being free of Gaddafi and Al Qaeda being decimated. It would have shown America we are still at war just before the election. Can’t have that so they hung him out to dry. He was killed. The cover up killed him. So then they tried to cover up the cover up.

          • 1Brett1

            Oh, so “Obama’s administration”  thought, “we’ll risk an international incident instead/attack instead”? 

            “…so they hung him [Ambassador Stevens] out to dry.” 

            “The cover up killed him …so then they tried to cover up the cover up.”

            You really are a nutcase conspiracy theorist with all of the energy and vehemence of a Truther. 

          • Gregg Smith

            He didn’t care about an international incident, he cared about getting reelected.

          • notafeminista

            Hyperbolic is as hyperbolic does.

            “Ah, so we should just do away with all police then, or at least arm citizens so they can kill police–or at the least maim them in a shoot-out–if the citizens feel police have abused their power.”

            Talk about being tired months ago.

          • 1Brett1

            And this relates to that other thread how, exactly? 

            Futo Buddy linked a story about a cop accidentally killing a person and called for citizens to not trust cops for protection (as he has said before citizens should arm themselves to even protect themselves against cops). Futo Buddy is using a tragic story as a scare tactic to promote his own version of gun ownership freedom.

            I don’t expect you to connect the dots, but do you defend such nonsense?

          • notafeminista

            His own version?  I had no idea Futo wrote the Constitution.

            Hyperbolic is as hyperbolic does.

          • 1Brett1

            Are you being purposefully obtuse, or do you come by that unwittingly?

          • jefe68

            Of course she is. 

        • 1Brett1

          “…he parsed carefully to cover his ass.”

          Talk about being a mind reader…that is horse shit, with which you are quite familiar. 

          • Gregg Smith

            No sir, I’m going by his words. Look it up.

          • 1Brett1

            So, in my search, should I look for Obama saying, “I am parsing my words, here, to cover my ass…”? 

          • Gregg Smith

            No, you look at what he said and it’s easy to see he did not characterize the attack as an act on terror as you said. 

        • jefe68

          No one died in Watergate.
          True but that does not excuse  the level of criminality that the Nixon administration was engaged in.  People went to jail and nixon resigned. He did so to spare the nation an impeachment trial which would have been devastating to the nation. He was then pardoned by Ford. Lucky him.

          • Gregg Smith

            I’m to excusing Nixon at all.

  • notafeminista

    The New Yorker is referring to it as the “IRS Non-scandal”.  Could someone help me out here?  I can’t remember if The New Yorker is too mainstream to be referenced or is erudite and enlightened and should be referenced.

    Dearie me.

    • http://www.facebook.com/arttoegemann Art Toegemann

      I like the source and I like the comment.

  • OnPointComments

    “The 10 P.M. Phone Call
    Clinton and Obama discussed Benghazi. What did they say?”
     
    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/348677/10-pm-phone-call-andrew-c-mccarthy 
     
    Excerpt:

    “…if I were investigating Benghazi, I’d be homing in on that 10 p.m. phone call. That’s the one between President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton — the one that’s gotten close to zero attention.
     
    “Jay Carney: “At about 10 p.m. [on 09/11/2012], the president called Secretary Clinton to get an update on the situation.”
     
    “Clinton then recalled: “I spoke with President Obama later in the evening to, you know, bring him up to date, to hear his perspective.”
     
    “At about 9 p.m. Washington time, Hicks [Gregory Hicks, the State Department’s No. 2 official in Libya] learned from the Libyan prime minister that Stevens was dead. Hicks said he relayed all significant developments on to Washington as the evening progressed — although he did not speak directly to Secretary Clinton again after the 8 p.m. briefing.
     
    “That is the context of the 10 p.m. phone call between the president and the secretary of state.
     
    “…just a few minutes after Obama called Clinton, the Washington press began reporting that the State Department had issued a statement by Clinton regarding the Benghazi attack. In it, she asserted ‘Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet.’
     
    “CNS News asked Carney whether, in that 10 p.m. phone call, the president and Secretary Clinton discussed the statement that Clinton was about to issue, and, specifically, whether they discussed ‘the issue of inflammatory material posted on the Internet.’  Carney declined to answer.
     
    “We now know from the e-mails and TV clips that, by Sunday morning, the White House staff, State Department minions, and Susan Rice were all in agreement that the video fairy tale, peppered with indignant rebukes of Islamophobia, was the way to go.
     
    “How do you suppose they got that idea?”

    • hennorama

      OPC
      – yet another in the line of opinions from yet another
      anti-everything-Obama Republican.

      Is
      Mr. Andrew C. McCarthy related to Sen. Joseph McCarthy? Can you
      assure us he is not? Americans need to know the answer to these
      important questions! I have here in my hand a list of 205—a list
      of names that were made known as being members of the McCarthy family
      and at least one of whom nevertheless is still working and shaping
      policy in the National Review! “…if I were investigating [Mr.
      McCarthy], I’d be homing in on that …”

      Tongue
      firmly in cheek as to the preceding. Seriously now –

      Here’s
      an excerpt of what Mr. McCarthy wrote on Sept. 12, 2012, for the same
      site:

      “Understand
      that Islam, particularly as Islamic supremacists interpret it, is not
      merely a religion; it is a totalitarian ideology that has some
      spiritual principles, which make up a small subset of the belief
      system. Blasphemy is not applied only to the spiritual principles —
      say, to the oneness of Allah, and the like. The speech prohibition
      applies across the board to all Islamic doctrine. You’ve got a
      problem with a woman’s court testimony being worth only half of a
      man’s? Blasphemy! You’ve got a problem with needing four male
      witnesses to prove rape? Blasphemy! You’ve got a problem with the
      death penalty for homosexuals? With stoning for adulterers? With
      scourging for the consumption of alcohol? Blasphemy, blasphemy,
      blasphemy!”

      “That’s
      what causes the rioting and murder. The “blasphemers” are only a
      pretext. What causes this is the indoctrination of Muslim populations
      in an evil ideology that justifies savagery over nonsense. That’s
      the proximate cause. If you want to look at a material cause beyond
      the proximate cause, the place to start would be American officials
      like the ones Daniel cites with seeming approval: David Petraeus,
      Robert Gates, Eric Holder, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama — and
      I’d add Lindsey Graham to the list. They are the officials who
      condemned Terry Jones’s exercise of free speech — book burning —
      because, as Daniel gently puts it, they were “worried it would lead
      to Muslim violence against Americans.” That is shameful. What
      “leads to Muslim violence” is the toxic combination of Islamic
      teaching that violence is the appropriate response to even minor
      insults and the dhimmified superpower’s acquiescence in this
      barbarism.”

      (For
      the reader – from m-w.com:
      “Definition
      of DHIMMI

      :
      a person living in a region overrun by Muslim conquest who was
      accorded a protected status and allowed to retain his original faith”

      (in
      other words, a non-Muslim in a Muslim region)
      =========

      from
      http://www.dhimmitude.org/archive/by_lecture_10oct2002.html
      :

      “Dhimmitude
      Past and Present : An Invented or Real History?

      “BAT
      YE’OR Thursday October 10, 2002

      “I
      call dhimmitude the comprehensive legal system established by the
      Muslim conquerors to rule the native non-Muslim populations subdued
      by jihad wars.”

      [BAT
      YE'OR is a pseudonym of Gisèle Littman, née Orebi, an Egyptian-born
      British writer, political commentator who writes about the history of
      Middle Eastern Christian and Jewish dhimmis living under Islamic
      governments. For Littman, "dhimmitude" refers to
      allegations of non-Muslims appeasing and surrendering to Muslims, and
      discrimination against non-Muslims in Muslim majority regions.
      See:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmitude.
      =========
      If
      you want to get an eye-opener, put “dhimmify” or “dhimmification”
      into your favorite search engine, then follow a few of the links.
      Here's an excerpt from one (which I will NOT link to), which not only
      calls Islam a “Theo-political religius cult”, but also writes
      that “Maybe America Needs a BNP” (British National Party, a
      far-right political party that restricted membership to "indigenous
      British" people until a 2010 legal challenge).

      [[[MONDAY,
      MARCH 30, 2009

      UN
      council votes to criminalize 'defamation' of Islam

      Here
      is an ACT! For America email alert showing that Islam is making a
      notorious effort to dhimmify the globe. By “dhimmify” I mean the
      Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) is wielding its oil and
      U.N. membership to make it illegal to criticize the Theo-political
      religious cult known as Islam (and which I prefer to call by its
      founder ergo Mohammedanism).

      Of
      the forty-seven member U.N. Human Rights (totalitarian) Council a
      majority of nations actually voted to criminalize criticism of
      Mohammedanism. I am guessing the thirteen members that abstained
      mostly did so out of the oil fear/Islamic terrorist connection. At
      least most of the Western nations stood by Free Speech. Eleven
      Western nations stood up for Free Speech.

      So
      of the forty-seven member council 23 voted to criminalize criticism
      of Mohammedanism and 24 members did NOT vote for the criminalization
      of criticism of Mohammedanism.

      ***************************************
      Maybe
      America Needs a BNP

      I
      just finished reading a tirade from a blogger upset that the British
      National Party (BNP) members are being selectively banned from jobs
      and governmental services.

      Evidently
      the BNP has a historical timeline that goes back to thuggery aspects
      of pro-Nazi and Hitler-philes. This means the BNP heritage is a
      history of white supremacy and anti-Semitism.

      Apparently
      the BNP has disavowed that past in their official writings but now
      take a controversial stand of anti-immigration. The focus of this
      anti-immigration is the growing population of Mohammedans in the UK.

      The
      BNP anti-Mohammedan immigration stands no doubt derive from Britain
      diluting British rule of law by allowing Sharia Law courts to have
      legal jurisdiction over the culturally Mohammedan. Incredibly the
      Sharia Law acquiescence is even supported by the England’s State
      Church – The Church of England (aka Anglican Church and in America
      the Episcopalian Church).

      Since
      the Brits have adapted the continental European stand that speaking
      against a religion is hate speech, an anti-Mohammedan immigration
      stand is considered racism by the government.

      The
      HUGE irony is that Mohammedan mullahs and apologists speak the most
      vile hate speech first against Jews and next against practicing
      Christians. The British government and EU government nary lift a hand
      against the Mohammedans that preach their hatred of Jews and
      Christians.

      Robert
      Locke writing for Think-Israel gives a good history of the BNP racist
      past. Now check this out: Locke is not sympathetic to the BNP past
      however he views the current BNP stand against Mohammedanism as
      something Israel should promote. There is an understanding that
      Mohammedanism has zero in common with the Liberty and Rights that
      exists in Western nations (and America in particular).

      Since
      the BNP has a racist past and has renounced anti-Semitism, white
      supremacy and the fascist leanings of neo-Nazism; today the BNP is
      still a racist party by virtue of repatriating and preventing future
      Mohammedans from the UK.

      Due
      to this media portrayal of racism there is a movement to ban BNP
      British citizens from certain jobs such as the police, nurses and the
      Anglican clergy.

      Imagine
      that: A British citizen this wishes to uphold the British tradition
      of the rule of law or worship and minister for the Christian God are
      being prohibited from their positions. Could it be the traditional
      power brokers of Britain are trying to ensure the BNP’s growing
      popularity does not turn into British votes that translated into MPs
      in Parliament? I ask this question for the website for BNP is more
      popular than the power broker political parties combined.

      Under
      the Obama Administration is this the kind of dilution of Liberty to
      expect in America?

      Read
      the anger of the British citizen. (Do note this blogger oozes a bit
      of the BNP white supremacist past while simultaneously realizing the
      threat of Islamic culture to Western culture.)

      JRH
      3/30/09]]]]
      =========

      Is
      that what Mr. McCarthy meant by his use of the word “dhimmified”?

      • OnPointComments

        #1:  I was reading a brief Hennorama comment while riding a unicorn to get the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.
         
        Required:  Identify all of the anomalies in the preceding sentence.
         
        Tongue firmly in cheek as to the preceding. Seriously now - 
         
        I wonder what President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton discussed in that 10 p.m. phone call just before she condemned the video.

        • hennorama

          No doubt it was not unicorns, pots of gold, or rainbows.

        • 1Brett1

          Well, according to Gregg, Obama and Hillary weren’t discussing anything but saying they had to get off the phone before each passed out blind drunk.

          • Gregg Smith

            I never said that. I said Obama was already passed out drunk. If the phone call happened at 10PM and was sober it makes things much worse. Now he has no excuse at all, embarrassing or otherwise. I was trying to be kind.

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

      CNS? What, like a real news service such as AP and McClatchy?

      They aren’t “News”, hack. They’re a talking point gen machine for Inbreds and righties. They don’t get carried by real newspapers and such.

      It saddens me a little that the National Review takes those idiots at CNS seriously.

      • OnPointComments

        Attached is a picture for you to color with your crayons until the next DailyKos or MediaMatters link is posted.

  • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

    here is a story for all those of you who think you would perfer to rely on the police for protection:
    http://www.nbcnews.com/id/51930934

    • 1Brett1

      Ah, so we should just do away with all police then, or at least arm citizens so they can kill police–or at the least maim them in a shoot-out–if the citizens feel police have abused their power.

      • Gregg Smith

        Bizarre. Did my Buddy Futo say that?

        • 1Brett1

          A cop kills a person by accident, and (as Futo Buddy has said before on several occasions that citizens should be armed because cops can’t be trusted) I should draw what kind of conclusion by your buddy’s comment?

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            we shoud do away with the notion that the police are there to “keep you safe” and have the  ability to do so. the police are there to investigate crimes and arrest people.you can call them but they will not appear instantly. you take it as a given that we should live with armed police patrolling the streets and citizens on lockdown, to me i think thats not the way things should be in a free society. if some sort of a critical mass of surviellience or police were effective in preventing crimes dunkin doughnuts would never be robbed, yet it is, all the time. 

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        many citizens are already armed. its a duty of a responsible citizen, like voting.except that more people own guns than vote most of the time. they protect themselves hundreds of times a day while the police are on their way.  i feel our police/prison/war/industrial complex fueled by prohibition is slowly destroying our country and really does not produce much benefit for the average citizen. you don’t think you are being a little silly with the hyperbole?

    • jefe68

      You sir are one messed up individual. 
      This is a tragic story, period. That you would use to forward your warped ideology says a lot about the kind of person you are.  Shame on you.

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        i just have not read or heard any stories of the police ever really helping someone who was being attacked besides the guy who was getting his face eaten on the street as the police drove by.  they take a while to come and harming you does not take a criminal very long. when they do show they may or may not be helpful. look at how the nypd recently shot 9 innocent bystanders shooting one guy who they probably should not have shot in the first place. they are not legally obligated to protect you. dont get mad at me for pointing out what should be  obvious, you have to be able to protect yourself
        (btw i got a good laugh out of your “shame on you” you sounded just like oboma?)

    • dataninja

      Thank goodness we have YOU to protect us with your weather reports!

      http://youtu.be/yN2_5jlpMFM

      • 1Brett1

        Actually, that is a step up from what I had imagined Futo Buddy does with his time.

  • Gregg Smith

    Hennorama, now that you have been thoroughly humiliated for all to see, here’s a chance to redeem yourself a bit by clarifying the following.

    I wrote: “So I’ll ask you, why wouldn’t Obama say he knew nothing about the IRS abuse when asked? Why wouldn’t he say no one in his administration knew anything about it when asked directly?”

    You replied: “As I am not a mind reader, I have no way to answer your questions.”

    So I asked: “So you agree he did not answer the question and are not curious as to why? Or do you think we should demand an answer?”

    This is the fourth time I’ve asked bunt as we know, you have a history of ignoring, getting snarky or making bizarre excuses when cornered. However, I have asks nicely and I have also indulged your library to a greater extent than you deserve. It’s important and the questions are simple yes or no questions.

    Or maybe someone else will show some intellectual honesty and show you how it’s done.

    • hennorama

      Ha!

      • 1Brett1

        Yeah, henn, why won’t you answer Gregg’s  loaded, presumptuous questions? Aren’t you being intellectually dishonest by not allowing him to put words in your mouth?

        • hennorama

          1Brett1 – frankly, it’s a bit difficult to determine why Gregg Smith even wants me to respond at all, based on his past comments, all directed to [hennorama]:

          “I don’t care about all that.” http://onpoint.wbur.org/2013/05/03/week-arrests-syria-pill#comment-885678990

          “I find your comment so bizarre and reasoning so warped I’m happy to let it speak for itself. I hope everybody reads it… but no one cares.” http://onpoint.wbur.org/2013/04/22/the-brothers-tsarnaev#comment-873481781

          “It’s too bad nobody cares because you are making a fool of yourself. Anyone can see that, look at the contortions everybody!” http://onpoint.wbur.org/2013/04/19/manhunt-for-boston-bombing-suspect#comment-873208971

          “Just so you know, I didn’t read a word, i don’t care” http://onpoint.wbur.org/2013/04/19/manhunt-for-boston-bombing-suspect#comment-872839011

          “I am the arbiter of nothing, it’s not my blog. My only standard is to be honest and as civil as possible.”
          http://onpoint.wbur.org/2013/03/22/week-in-the-news-235#comment-841143087

          “If I occasionally call you a piece of shit, it is only because it’s true despite how incredibly out-of-character it is for me to say. I mean enough’s enough.” http://onpoint.wbur.org/2013/05/10/week-cleveland-sexual-sanford#comment-896049623

          And now today’s “Hennorama, now that you have been thoroughly humiliated for all to see …”

          And “Or maybe someone else will demonstrate some intellectual honesty and show you how it’s done.”

          So, Gregg Smith writes that:

          he doesn’t care what I write
          finds my comments bizarre and my reasoning warped
          that no one and nobody cares
          that I’m making a fool of myself
          says he’s the arbiter of nothing
          says his standard is to be civil and honest
          calls me a piece of shit “because it’s true”
          thinks I’ve been humiliated by his words
          impugns my intellectual honesty

          BUT WANTS ME TO RESPOND.

          Did I wake up in Bizzaro World this morning or something?

          • Gregg Smith

            Your reply to my comment with something like 50 paragraphs and well over 30 links was after these instances you now cite. So why the sudden change? You respond to me all the time. What has happened beside my thoughtful civil compliance with your request since? You lost the argument, that’s what.

            Lest we forget, the issue is not me. We were debating Benghazi. It is very clear, and I proved it unrebutted by you, that within a day or two the best evidence was the attack was a coordinated terrorist act. I have seen zero evidence the murder of our Ambassador had anything at all to do with the silly video. You did not provide it. 

            Here’s the thing, I don’t care a bit about digging through your comments and thinking I’m making some petty irrelevant point about you. I could but why? That’s what you do. I’m concerned about the issue. You are concerned with distorting the truth and chaining the subject. 

            I should clarify, I just laid out the facts but it wasn’t me that humiliated you. You did that to yourself. Keep digging.

          • Gregg Smith

            I didn’t expect a response to this. You have a history of ignoring things when you are cornered.

          • hennorama

            Gregg Smith – Finally!

            Gregg Smith, in replying to HIMSELF, admits “You have a history of ignoring things when you are cornered.”BTW – the whole “talking to yourself” thing seems a bit worrisome when you get to the point where you also reply to yourself.

            Just saying.

            [insert the usual disclaimer re: health care professionals here]

          • Gregg Smith

            But I knew you’d respond to the above and avoid the fact you were busted. You’re making it way too easy to prove my point.

        • Gregg Smith

          There is nothing at all loaded about the questions. There is nothing presumptuous either. Why on earth shouldn’t the President tell us if anyone in the White House knew? You’re not stupid, you can’t be serious. You have expressed outrage over it before, what happened? Henny demands answers and asks questions by the boatload. And when I dutifully went through them point by point she can’t hang. She was the one that stepped in it and ran. 

          BTW you swallowed a talking point whole:

          http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/348744/pfeiffer-stretches-truth-benghazi-emails-jonathan-strong

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

            National Review?

            I’d say that’s desperation time.

          • Gregg Smith

            What sources do you trust?

      • Gregg Smith

        Stings don’t it.

        • hennorama

          Gregg Smith – HA!

          NUTS!

          (in the spirit of the other OP show segment “How Great Quotes Shaped Our World”, this is a quote from General Anthony McAuliffe. On December 22, 1944, during the Battle of the Bulge in the Ardennes in Belgium, McCuliffe and the famed 101st Airborne Division were in the crossroads city of Bastogne, and were surrounded by the Germany army, and were critically low on ammo, warm clothing, and other supplies.

          When the Germans sent a demand for the immediate surrender of the besieged American troops. McAuliffe, the senior officer present, replied “Nuts.”

          McAuliffe’s response is considered to be the most famous quote from WWII, and he may be the only person who became famous for a single word.

          A few more quotes that are perhaps more pertinent:

          “I don’t care a wit about any perceived “victory”or not on some stupid blog.” – Gregg Smith Dec. 12, 2012

          “So just declare victory and move on.” – Gregg Smith May 18, 2013

          “Hennorama, now that you have been thoroughly humiliated for all to see regarding Benghazi, here’s a chance to redeem yourself a bit by clarifying the following.” – Gregg Smith May 19, 2013

          “You lost the argument, that’s what.” – Gregg Smith May 19, 2013

          “Stings don’t it.” – Gregg Smith May 19, 2013

          “I should clarify, I just laid out the facts but it wasn’t me that humiliated you. You did that to yourself. Keep digging.” – Gregg Smith May 19, 2013

          • Gregg Smith

            Those are great quotes but what do they have to do with Benghazi? Or the IRS?

            I will stipulate, as I have before, I am whatever it is you want to think I am. Instead of writing post after post after post about me in an attempt to prove who knows what, I’d rather debate the issues of the day. 

            So just put your big girl pant suit on and get curious about why the President didn’t answer a direct question about the White House’s knowledge of the IRS thing. Accept the video meme was manufactured, because it’s clear. And quit digging. You’re not helping yourself here.

          • hennorama

            I disagree.
            What is the basis for your statement?

          • Gregg Smith

            The basis for my statements is to encourage honest debate over these very important issues. It’s my thing.

          • hennorama

            HA!
            Nuts!

          • hennorama

            Do you sell tickets to this comedy show, or is it free?

          • Gregg Smith

            Why no objection to my use of “big girl pant suit” in this comment? Why would you characterize it as giving a pass to the word Dude because it’s generic if you were male. It makes no sense.

            I have seen your admonition about sex (gender is a grammatical term and the use of “sex nor gender” is just strange and at best redundant) at least a few times. Always when it’s implied you are male, never when it’s implied you are female. Maybe I missed it. But rest assured I don’t care which of the 3 sexes you are just as I don’t care where the Iri bloom so early so you can smell them or surf, sail and whatever else begins with “S”. I’d guess Southern CA but again, it makes no difference to me. I’m just observant, that’s all. In general I try to be a bit more gentlemanly in conversation with females but that train left the station long ago regarding you.

          • hennorama

            Smith – there are only so many hours in the day to object to your objectionable comments, sir.

            Once again, I must reply “asked and answered” per my prior comment not in this particular thread.

          • hennorama

            Gregg Smith – as you consider yourself to be “just observant, that’s all”, you have likely “observed” that when it comes to guesswork, I’m not a fan.

            As to your “guess Southern CA” – I certainly have spent some enjoyable days in SoCal, including time spent in and around Moorpark, CA, and in the company of various very engaging, enchanting, enthusiastic, energetic and enthralling personnel at the Exotic Animal Training & Management (EATM) program at Moorpark College. Those were some entertaining days.

            One problem with your “guess Southern CA” is that I have residences in multiple US states, multiple countries, and multiple continents. Combining this with my frequent travel for various personal and business pursuits, and the fact that even I have difficulty some days in identifying my exact location upon awakening, leaves you with mere guesswork.

            As I said, I’m not a fan.

            One also must recognize the possibility that the conclusion contained within your statement that “I [Gregg Smith] think I [Gregg Smith] know you [hennorama] are female” is not factually accurate.

            Make your case, if it’s not too much trouble.

            Keep in mind the possibility that everything you think you know about [hennorama] is inaccurate. This is not meant as a challenge. Rather, it is intended as a “thought experiment”.

            What if everything “you think you know” about [hennorama] is not true?

  • OnPointComments

    About Sarah Hall Ingram, head of the IRS tax-exempt division from 2009 to 2012:
     
    “There’s nothing that suggests she did anything wrong.”  –White House senior adviser Dan Pfeiffer, 5/19/2013
     
    The IRS has admitted that its tax-exempt division targeted conservative groups from 2010 to 2012.  Ms. Ingram was in charge; her failure to know what was going on in her division proves that she failed in executing the duties of her office.  Ms. Ingram may not have done anything illegal, but there is ample evidence that she did plenty wrong.  The penalty for incompetence?  Promotion to head of the IRS’s Obamacare office.

  • Bruce94

    Disqus error

  • Bruce94

    Disqus error

  • WorriedfortheCountry

    Oh boy that 400ppm is at it again.

    “Nenana Ice Classic — closing in on all time record latest ice out”


    Geophysicist Martin Jeffries at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks said in 2009,

    The Nenana Ice Classic is a pretty good proxy for climate change in the 20th century.”http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/19/nenana-ice-classic-closing-in-on-all-time-record-latest-ice-out/#more-86553

  • WorriedfortheCountry

    IRS’s own data show there was no surge in Tea Party applications in 2010.  Where did you get your information?

    Also, when did the GOP ‘cut’ the budget to the IRS?  The Dems were in complete control of congress in 2010 and there hasn’t even been a budget during Obama’s tenure.

    http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2013/05/17/shock-irs-own-data-shows-there-was-no-2010-surge-in-tax-exempt-apps/

    http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/05/there-was-no-surge-in-irs-tax-exempt-applications-in-2010/275985/?utm_source=feedly

    • hennorama

      WftC – I must quibble with your post as well.

      You have “inappropriately” (sorry but I couldn’t resist using the TIGTA report’s terminology) conflated “Tea Party applications” with “applications for tax-exempt status by groups seeking to be recognized as social-welfare organizations” (from the first linked article), and “501(c)(4) social welfare organizations” (from the second linked article).

      Please note that applications from all sorts of organizations were identified using inappropriate criteria, not just “Tea Party applications”.

      Also, there’s not much dispute that the vast majority of the 298 applications identified using “inappropriate criteria” had “potential significant political campaign intervention” in IRS-speak. The TIGTA indicated that of the 298 applications “that had been identified as potential political cases as of May 31, 2012”, at least 205 had been appropriately selected as “potential political cases”, requiring additional information and review (page 10 of the report).

      Furthermore, the TIGTA projected that the IRS missed as many as 185 applications that SHOULD have been identified for further review, but were not. (page 9 of the report)

      The problem was by no means limited to “Tea Party applications”. The entire process was fouled up from the start.

      BTW, you might be interested in the following NY Times article from May 18, 2013, titled “Confusion and Staff Troubles Rife at I.R.S. Office in Ohio”. It’s an overview from “interviews with current and former employees and with lawyers who dealt with them, along with a review of I.R.S. documents”, that “paint[s] a more muddled picture of an understaffed Cincinnati outpost that was alienated from the broader I.R.S. culture and given little direction.”

      http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/19/us/politics/at-irs-unprepared-office-seemed-unclear-about-the-rules.html?pagewanted=1&ref=politics

    • Gregg Smith

      I heard an interesting phone call on the radio today from a Republican bundler who said she can’t get anyone to write a check for fear of IRS harassment. That makes sense, it’s all about 2014. Obama knows full well he is untouchable, it’s no skin off his back if this scandal blows up as long as the donations to Republicans come to a screeching halt. This is why the IRS planted the question so Ms. Lerner could tell us about it. They did not want it to be a secret. They want people Republicans afraid. Very afraid.

  • WorriedfortheCountry

    Rand Paul claims there is a smoking gun IRS memo instructing IRS employees to target Obama’s enemies.

    Could it be that Harry Reid is Rand Paul’s source?

    http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/19/rand-paul-claims-revealing-memo-exists-in-irs-scandal/

    • Gregg Smith

      I’m not sure I get the Harry Reid angle but that was an interesting article.

      This is a President who advocated getting in peoples faces, bringing a gun to a knife fight and told Republicans to sit in the back. His first Chief of Staff is famous for naming political opponents as he stabbed a knife into a table yelling “Dead” for each one. The IRS thing makes perfect sense for him.

      • WorriedfortheCountry

        It IS the Chicago way.

        Remember, Obama used divorce records against his political opponents in Illinois.  It is the “Chicago Way” to use the power of government as a political weapon.

        Regarding the memo, I wonder how good RP’s source i?.  I hope he isn’t being set up.  I only mention Harry Reid because he claimed to have information about Romney’s taxes that only could have come from the IRS — so his contacts must be good ;)

        • Gregg Smith

          Oh, I see now. Good point.

          I mentioned this before but no one asked Reid how he got the IRS info on Romney. Well, it turns out he didn’t, it was a lie. But the press didn’t care where the info came from nor did they care if it was a lie.

          I suppose if one was so inclined they could find tons of other threatening quotes from Obama, as well as “jokes” about audits. 

    • brettearle

      What sort of half-baked politician, with questionable scruples–especially one who might aspire to the Oval Office–would come out publicly and say that he has not seen the memo….

      BUT HAS ONLY HEARD ABOUT IT.

      Is that the kind of politician that we want, at any time, near Pennsylvania Avenue?

      The kind of man who pushes half-truths, partial rumors, unsubstantiated reports, unsourced propaganda?

      At least Reid has never thought, seriously, of becoming President.

      Paul doesn’t simply look like a Creep; he IS a Creep.

      Pardon my rare physical dressing down (I learned that from the fringe Right), but when it walks like a duck…..

      Paul is some kind of Weird….

      • WorriedfortheCountry

        “The kind of man who pushes half-truths, partial rumors, unsubstantiated reports, unsourced propaganda?”

        Harry Reid — time and time again.
        If you want a GOP culprit — Michelle Bachmann plays that game from time to time.

        From my observations, Dr. Rand Paul does not peddle in rumors, etc.  Time will tell how good his sources are on the IRS memo.  Until then I call your assertions premature.  The funny thing you are engaging in the same behavior you accuse Dr. Paul of — unless you know for a fact the quality of Dr. Paul’s source.

        • brettearle

          You don’t get it.

          First, I ALREADY include Reid, by direct implication, as guilty–in my above comment.

          And I have been vehement about Reid’s comment, in other places, in this thread or earlier.

          But more importantly–to address your entry about Paul–NO prominent statesman, especially a Senator, should EVER make a statement as volatile as the one made by Paul….WITHOUT being able to back it up IMMEDIATELY.

          Otherwise, the public comment is nothing more than a pathetic manipulation–designed to sensationalize a `supposed’ scandal by throwing out any sort of wanton claim…so that the imagination of the Malicious Rumor Mill is activated and becomes viral.

          It is actually pretty much of a disgrace.

          [Reid's comment, before the Election, wasn't far off, in that category, as well.]

          • hennorama

            brettearle – this is similar to the way Sen. Ted Cruz smeared then-Secretary of Defense nominee Chuck Hagel in the confirmation process, via sleazy, fact-free insinuation. Cruz said:

            “We do not know, for example, if he received compensation for giving paid speeches at extreme or radical groups. In my view, given the two letters he received, it is a fair inference to assume that he and those handling his nomination assembled that information, assembled his compensation, and the only reasonable inference, I think, is when they assembled it, there was something in there that they did not want to make public.”

            And later,

            “We do not know, for example, if he received compensation for giving paid speeches at extreme or radical groups,” Cruz told the Senate Armed Services Committee before it voted … to approve Hagel’s nomination. “It is at a minimum relevant to know if that $200,000 that he deposited in his bank account came directly from Saudi Arabia, came directly from North Korea.”

            Sources:
            http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/12/chuck-hagel-confirmation-vote_n_2669747.html

            http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-02-14/opinions/37097623_1_chuck-hagel-senate-candidate-jim-de-mint

            Cruz could be said to be (apologies for the Frenglish) “pissant into the wind” with these remarks.

          • brettearle

            Excellent points all around…..

            They throw out volatile insinuations that prick (pardon my English) the biased  Imagination:

            Their examples are fabricated guilt-by-innuendo scraps, with so-called headlines that supposedly, they want to make you believe, belong on the front page of the New York Times–when, indeed, they would be flatly rejected by the Weekly Standard much less the National Enquirer.

            The headlines sell to minds that operate on a politically diseased Agenda.

          • brettearle

            By the way, Henn, when are you going to share your skills, Nationally?

          • hennorama

            brettearle – TY for your kinds words.

      • hennorama

        brettearle – I couldn’t possibly comment on “Paul doesn’t simply look like …” but others have, especially about his “hair”.  See:

        http://www.charlestoncitypaper.com/HaireoftheDog/archives/2013/03/26/whats-up-with-rand-pauls-hair-have-you-been-randed

  • Gregg Smith

    Has anyone else noticed the libs are going off the deep end now that their messiah is being shown for what he is? I see very little honest debate and a lot of dodging, hyperbole and anger. Normally they would be embarrassed to go on record with some of this stuff. 

  • hennorama

    Charlottenative3 – your statement “Republicans in this country inundated the IRS with requests for tax exempt status for the hundreds of thousands of small groups they formed to try to unseat Democrats in public office” is inaccurate, BY A LOT.

    But it’s really not the raw numbers of applications that are the problem, although the number of applications for 501(c)(4) tax-exempt status (which can engage in political activities) nearly doubled from FY 2009 to FY 2012. (see below)

    The problem instead is the growth in the number of organizations that appeared to be, or planned to be, involved in political campaign activities (known as “potential significant political campaign intervention” in IRS-speak), and which also wanted TAX-EXEMPT STATUS. The number of THESE organizations that were or planned to be involved in politics exploded after the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision, which was handed down by the Supreme Court in January 2010.

    As to the following data, it’s important to understand that the Federal government uses fiscal year periods for all of their reporting. Federal Fiscal Years (FY) begin on October 1 of the previous calendar year, and ends on September 30 of the year with which it’s numbered.

    For example, FY 2010 would be the period from October 1, 2009 through September 30, 2010.

    The TIGTA report used data supplied by the IRS Exempt Organizations function, and showed the following:

    Figure 2: Number of Applications for I.R.C. §§ 501(c)(3)–(6) Tax-Exempt Status Received by the IRS

    Fiscal   I.R.C. Subsection
    Year   501(c)(3)  501(c)(4)  501(c)(5)   501(c)(6)

    2009    65,179      1,751        543          1,828

    2010    59,486      1,735        290          1,637

    2011    58,712      2,265        409          1,836

    2012    66,543      3,357     1,081          2,338

    See:http://www.treasury.gov/tigta/auditreports/2013reports/201310053fr.pdf
    (the TIGTA report)

  • Bruce94

    You astutely point to one reason why the IRS scandal is unlikely to gain traction, namely, because most people have come to view the Tea Party as an invention of the GOP for the express purpose of obstructing the Obama agenda, creating govt. gridlock, laundering anonymous donations from millionaires consistent with Citizens United in order to influence the outcomes of both primary and general elections.  In other words, many will see this controversy (especially if the facts as the IG report indicates do not implicate Administration officials higher up the chain) as pure politics or possibly even as politics as usual.

    A lot of discussion as to parsing “targeting” vs “identifying,” when the real parsing problem lies with the language of the statute and IRS interpretation.  Originally, 501(c)4 non-profits were defined as organizations engaged “exclusively” in social welfare; that was changed (coincidentally under a Republican Admin.) to “primarily” and the GOP jumped at the opportunity to exploit the loophole after Citizens United opened the floodgates. 

    Another example of a really harmful parsing issue is when these Tea Party groups can get away with campaigning against Obama by mischaracterizing the ACA so long as they refer to it as healthcare reform avoiding the term Obamacare and even months after the Supreme Court upheld it. This parsing at its worst most deceitful–using hot button issues that are identified with a candidate without mentioning the candidate by name to be in compliance with a law that is practically unenforceable.   

    In the final analysis, for those Tea Party apologists who haven’t noticed, the favorability ratings for the Tea Party have been plummeting and are at all-time lows.  Many people probably don’t care if they are subject to greater scrutiny although IMO they should not have been held to a different standard or selected for review based on criteria that did not apply to other groups seeking the same tax-exempt status.

    • Gregg Smith

      But if most people think that about the Tea Party then most people are dead wrong. It was spawned by Bush. It was as grass roots as any movement has ever been. The manufactured, destructive anti-American movement was the Occupy debacle.

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

        Yawn.

        The bi-curious have left the Tea Party at least four years ago.

  • Bruce94

    Disqus Error

  • pete18
    • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

      “Even Bob Schieffer”?

      Hahaha.

  • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

    lets audit the pentagon while we are at it

  • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

    the casing is propably the least disgusting part and what do you think the artificail casings are made of

  • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

    homeland eh? when did we start calling it that? it seems that bush started that and to me it always makes me think of the nazies and their fatherland

  • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

    i think we need to seperate the troops from what they are asked to do. they do a lousy dangerous job and are not paid very well the least we cna do is give them our respect

  • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

    on the plus side this has been a great distraction from the anti gun propagada

  • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

    thats fun. you should do one for bicycle accidents or pool drownings. or maybe just dedicate one to all the kids who die when their parents leave the car windows up. what a nice day, i can’t wait to get to the range

    • Dataninja

      Can you do another Weather report for us from there Futo?

  • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

    lol gun shows and online purchases require background checks now

  • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

    dont forget our system of gun control that ensures minorities and lower class individuals cannot have access to defensive arms

  • StilllHere

    Obama spied on a Fox News reporter.
    It just keeps getting worse and worse.

    • hennorama

      StilllHere – “Obama spied on a Fox News reporter” is nonsense.

      Pres. Obama did no such thing, unless in your Bizzaro World, “FBI investigators” = “Obama”, and “investigated possible leaks of classified information about North Korea” = “spied on”.

      FBI investigators investigated possible leaks of classified information about North Korea involving a Fox News reporter, who may have broken the law.

      An affidavit for a search warrant in the case indicated that a “June 2009 article disclosed national defense information that was classified TOP SECRET/SPECIAL COMPARTMENTED INFORMATION (TS/SCI)”, and “the information was not declassified prior to its disclosure in the June 2009 article“.

      Should the DOJ just let that go, without having the FBI investigate?

      Source:
      http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/page/local/affidavit-for-search-warrant/162/ (see page 7)

      And, according to the Washington Post:

      “[FBI agent Reginald] Reyes wrote that there was evidence [chief Washington correspondent for Fox News James] Rosen had broken the law, “at the very least, either as an aider, abettor and/or co-conspirator.” That fact distinguishes his case from the probe of the AP, in which the news organization is not the likely target.

      “Using italics for emphasis, Reyes explained how Rosen allegedly used a “covert communications plan” and quoted from an e-mail exchange between Rosen and Kim that seems to describe a secret system for passing along information.

      “In the exchange, Rosen used the alias “Leo” to address Kim and called himself “Alex,” an apparent reference to Alexander Butterfield, the man best known for running the secret recording system in the Nixon White House, according to the affidavit.

      “Rosen instructed Kim to send him coded signals on his Google account, according to a quote from his e-mail in the affidavit: “One asterisk means to contact them, or that previously suggested plans for communication are to proceed as agreed; two asterisks means the opposite.”

      “[Rosen] also wrote, according to the affidavit: “What I am interested in, as you might expect, is breaking news ahead of my competitors” including “what intelligence is picking up.” And: “I’d love to see some internal State Department analyses.”

      Source:
      http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/a-rare-peek-into-a-justice-department-leak-probe/2013/05/19/0bc473de-be5e-11e2-97d4-a479289a31f9_story.html

      Get out of the echo chamber and go back under your rock.

    • Gregg Smith

      It was two reporters and a producer. We already knew the administration was at war with Fox. Ironically it was the press corps that threw the flag and ended the boycott because they understood it was a hideous practice. Rosen is a very respected journalist within the corps. I expect similar outrage.

  • OnPointComments

    Only in government could there be all of this outrage expressed, by the President, his administration, the Congress, the press, and others, about the actions of government employees, and those employees not be fired.

  • Gregg Smith

    Here is the statement from Fox regarding The DOI of treating James Rosen as a criminal for doing his job.

    “We are outraged to learn today that James Rosen was named a criminal co-conspirator for simply doing his job as a reporter. In fact, it is downright chilling. We will unequivocally defend his right to operate as a member of what up until now has always been a free press.”

    • hennorama

      Gregg Smith – two questions:

      #1 Should national defense information classified as TOP SECRET/SPECIAL COMPARTMENTED INFORMATION (TS/SCI)”, and that was not declassified prior to its disclosure, be disclosed to anyone not authorized to view said TS/SCI information?

      #2 If an article or article in the press indicates the disclosure of national defense information classified as TOP SECRET/SPECIAL COMPARTMENTED INFORMATION (TS/SCI), and said information was not declassified prior to its disclosure, should the source of the leak
      of said information be investigated, regardless of where any such investigation might lead?

      • Gregg Smith

        I will usually answer questions when asked nicely if the questions have merit. But I am very confused about your criteria for the same.

        1) In general, no. If it’s true the leaker should be investigated.

        2) In general yes. If it’s true the leaker should be investigated.
         
        Rosen was not the leaker. If it was top secret information he should have never been told by the leaker. I do not accept the affidavit from the DOI on face value and that’s sad. I would like to be able to. We’ll see where it leads. I don’t have a problem with tracking the security badge but I do have a big problem naming Rosen as a co-conspititor so his personal emails can be spied on. Fox is an enemy of this administration and they play dirty. I think it stinks.

        Who leaked the information on the Bin Laden raid to the movie makers? No one ever asked.

        • hennorama

          Gregg Smith – TYFYR. Please note the endeavor of focusing on the topic of what you described as “the statement from Fox regarding The DOI [sic] of treating James Rosen as a criminal for doing his job”, and your direct response to my questions.

          Your response leads to further questions.

          #1 Your answers both included the term “in general’, implying that there are specific instances and/or conditions under which your answers would be different. If this is the case, what are those specific instances and/or conditions that might change your answers?

          #2 Have you read the affidavit that was leaked to the press in its entirety?

          I ask this due to the following:

          -in the affidavit supporting the application for a search warrant, there is absolutely no mention of “James Rosen”.

          Rather, the term used throughout the affidavit is “the Reporter”. rgo, James Rosen was NOT NAMED. This contradicts the quote in your original comment, which you attributed to “Fox”.

          -again per the affidavit, “the Reporter” was not “named a criminal co-conspirator”.

          Rather, the affidavit indicates that “there is probable cause to believe that the Reporter (along with Mr. Kim) violated 18 U.S.C. § 793 (d) either as Mr. Kim’s co-conspirator and/or aider and abettor, and that evidence of that crime is likely contained withing the [redacted]@gmail.com account.”

          This again contradicts the quote in your original comment, which you attributed to “Fox”.

          • Gregg Smith

            The document was issued in 2009. We now know it was James Rosen, William LaJeunesse and Mike Levine. I suppose every news outlet on the planet could be wrong but no one has denied it.

            I wrote in general because I don’t know the specifics. It’s impossible to say what circumstances could affect the dynamic without knowing more. I harken back to Valerie Plame who must not have been covert. The leaker was not even charged. To this day many still swear Rove or Cheney broke the law. 

            No, I’ve read only the first 8 or 9 pages. It pains me to say I don’t put much faith in the DOI (Department of Injustice as long as Holder remains). I am very skeptical and until further evidence I will stand with Fox. It’s an innocence until proven guilty thing.

            I posted the official response from Fox executive Michael Clemente.

          • hennorama

            Gregg Smith – TYFYR.

            You wrote “The document was issued in 2009.” Exactly which “document” are you referencing?

            Perhaps you were referring to the multiple articles in the press in June 2009 and July 2009, as referenced in the affidavit. Please confirm or deny.

            Do you acknowledge the contradictions described in my previous post – that James Rosen was NOT NAMED, and “the Reporter” (whomsoever they may be) was not “named a criminal co-conspirator” in the affidavit?

            One must recommend reading the affidavit that was leaked to the press in its entirety, especially pages 7 through 27, and specifically Section II “FACTS SUPPORTING PROBABLE CAUSE” before you make any further comment.

            Indeed Mr. Rosen has been identified by various sources as “the Reporter”, but he was NOT NAMED in the affidavit. One need only read the affidavit to verify this.

            You wrote “It’s an innocence until proven guilty thing. After four years he has not been charged.” Who is the person described as “he” in your statement?

            Again, please note the endeavor of focusing on the topic of what you described as “the statement from Fox regarding The DOI [sic] of treating James Rosen as a criminal for doing his job”, and your direct response to my questions and comments.

            You have meandered into “Valerie Plame/Rove/Cheney territory. Focus, please.

            TYAFYR.

          • Gregg Smith

            Is is not plain “he” is Rosen and the document is the affidavit? The affidavit was issued in 2010, the event happened in 2009, sorry for the confusion. It is not new was my point. 

            Sure, he was not named in the affidavit, if you say so, I did not read it. I don’t see the relevance. Rosen was named a co-conspirator, according to multiple reports. The affidavit is the 20th document in the docket. As I said, it was not the only document in the paper trail.

            I certainly have no interest in debating Plame. I was giving you a complete answer and that case was illustrative to that end.

            I don’t know your point and I asked you to clarify:

            “Are you suggesting Rosen was not the target?”

            So here’s where i’m at. I’m not playing your game because it’s silly. You really need to make up your mind. Your rules are tiresome. You ask questions (and I foolishly answer) but refuse to answer them. You say you the idea of responding to me is bizzaro… but then respond. You send me around the world with 35 irrelevant links and scold me to focus. Really man (generic), who the hell do you think you are? This is not honest debate.

          • hennorama

            Gregg Smith – TYFYR. I originally posted this as a reply to an earlier comment – my apologies.

            No, I am not “suggesting Rosen was not the target”. I’m saying it outright. Rosen was not the target of the investigation. The “target” of the search warrant was “evidence, fruits and instrumentalities of criminal violations of 18 U.S.C. § 793 (d)”. (See page 3 of the affidavit supporting the search warrant application).

            The search warrant was of course granted by a Federal judge, who agreed that there was probable cause to do so. BTW, the affidavit-for-search-warrant was unsealed in 2011, according to various media reports.

            This of course was all part of the investigation into the alleged leaker, Stephen Jin-Woo Kim.

            See:
            http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793 (the above-referenced U.S.C code section)

            As you have not read the affidavit, here are a few truncated quotes from the it, excerpted from Mr. Kim’s emails, which the FBI had already obtained via other searches. These emails contained communications attributed to be FROM “the Reporter” and TO Mr. Kim.

            If Mr. Rosen is “the Reporter”, and the information contained in the affidavit is correctly attributed to him, there is a prima facie case that there was a violation of the law:

            “I’d love to report that the IC* sees activity inside [the Foreign Country], what intelligence is picking up, etc.…maybe on the basis of internal memos … internal State Department analyses … In short; Let’s break some news, and expose muddle-headed policy when we see it – or force the administration’s hand to go in the right direction, if possible. The only way to do this is to EXPOSE the policy, or what the [Foreign Country] is up to ,,,”

            *IC is a common acronym denoting Intelligence Community”

            “The Reporter” appears to be soliciting disclosure of intelligence, and expresses not only a desire to report it, but to do so in order to change US policy, by “forc[ing] the administration’s hand to go in the right direction, if possible” by exposing the policy.

            This is not mere reporting.

            See page 20 of the affidavit, which is available from numerous sources, including here:

            http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/page/local/affidavit-for-search-warrant/162/
            ————
            Again, please note the endeavor of focusing on the topic of what you described as “the statement from Fox regarding The DOI [sic] of treating James Rosen as a criminal for doing his job”, and your direct responses to my questions and comments about this topic.

            No, it was completely unclear and not at all “plain ‘he’ is Rosen”, nor was it “plain … the document is the affidavit”, ergo my questions. This lack of clarity was predominant in your written response from the very beginning. Your first two sentences were:

            “The document was issued in 2009. We now know it was James Rosen, William LaJeunesse and Mike Levine.”

            Your first sentence was unclear and inaccurate, as you acknowledge in your latest response, which now accurately reflects the timeline of the 2009 article (containing alleged illegally leaked national defense information classified as TOP SECRET) —> the 2010 affidavit. I knew that the article had been written in 2009, and the affidavit issued in 2010 because I had read the affidavit. My question was designed to allow you the chance to correct your inaccuracy. Accuracy is important, as you have previously agreed.

            Your second sentence then indicated some (debatable) universal knowledge about three people – “James Rosen, William LaJeunesse and Mike Levine.” You then went on to mention, in sequence, Valerie Plame, Rove, Cheney, and finally “Holder”, which is the last name mentioned prior to your statements “It’s an innocence until proven guilty thing. After four years he has not been charged.”

            Yes, after all that it is “plain ‘he’ is Rosen”. I mean, OBVIOUSLY, right?

            Please note that there was no criticism in my response to your unclear comments. I merely asked you to clarify your words. Guesses, assumptions and inferences only lead to further guesses, assumptions and inferences.

            Thank you for acknowledging that Mr. Rosen was NOT NAMED in the affidavit for the search warrant. And it obviously follows that if Mr. Rosen was not named in the affidavit, then he also was NOT NAMED “a criminal co-conspirator”, as the Fox statement that you quoted indicated.

            This makes the entire Fox statement, which you quoted, inaccurate, does it not? Yet you “don’t see the relevance”. You then wrote “Rosen was named a co-conspirator, according to multiple reports”. This implies a belief that if something is reported multiple times, that it is therefore accurate or true.

            Allow me to refer you to the earliest reported death totals in the Moore, OK tornado disaster, the ABC Benghazi emails fiasco, and the early Boston Massacre reporting, to dissuade you from such belief.

            TYAFYR.

          • Gregg Smith

            They seized the phone records of Rosen’s parents as well as Fox executives. We learned that today. CBS’s Sharyl Attkisson (Benghazi and Fast & Furious critic) is reporting her personal computer has been compromised. They judge shopped for the warrant after being turned down. What will we learn tomorrow? I have no use for a years old affidavit from the Department of Injustice. This stinks.

          • hennorama

            Gregg Smith – allow me to point out the following:

            #1 “In general”, you believe that if TOP SECRET national defense information should not be be disclosed to anyone not authorized to view said TS/SCI information, and, “If it’s true the leaker should be investigated”.

            #2 “In general”, you believe that if an article or article in the press indicates the disclosure of national defense information classified as TS/SCI, and said information was not declassified prior to its disclosure, the source of the leak of said information should be investigated, regardless of where any such investigation might lead, and, “If it’s true the leaker should be investigated”.

            #3 The alleged “leaker”, Stephen Jin-Woo Kim, was investigated by the FBI and DOJ, and has been charged with Unauthorized Disclosure of National Defense Information 18 U.S.C. § 793(d) (the Espionage Act), and
            making False Statements 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2). Note that the affidavit that is the basis for the “controversy” involves allegations of violation of 18 U.S.C. § 793(d) (the Espionage Act), and that the investigation has apparently involved Mr. Rosen and others. Mr. Rosen has not been named or charged with any crime.

            Yet you “have no use for a years old affidavit from the Department of Injustice [sic]“, despite the fact that recent reporting about the existence of this document is the basis for this “controversy”.

            #4 You acknowledge that Mr. Rosen was not named in the affidavit-for-search-warrant. You are silent as to the fact that therefore Mr. Rosen could not have been “named a criminal co-conspirator”, which is in direct conflict with the Fox statement that you quoted.

            #5 You acknowledge that “I’ve read only the first 8 or 9 pages” of the affidavit-for-search-warrant in question. This is despite the fact that recent reporting on the existence of this document is the basis of this “controversy”.

            #6 Given that you indicated that “I’ve read only the first 8 or 9 pages” of the affidavit, I quoted pertinent parts that were in later pages of the affidavit. As part of your response, you wrote “I have no use for a years old affidavit from the Department of Injustice [sic]”. You are silent as to the import and implications of the aforementioned quotes, if accurate and true as to “the Reporter”.

            #7 Your statement “They seized the phone records of Rosen’s parents as well as Fox executives” is unconfirmed speculation. An article on foxnews.com published May 22, 2013 reads, in part:

            “Documents filed in October 2011 appear to show exchanges that match the specific locations of Fox News’ White House, Pentagon, State Department and other operations. The last four digits of each of the phone numbers listed are redacted in the government filing so it is impossible to know the full numbers.”

            And later,

            “The phone number for Rosen’s parents also falls within one of the exchanges listed in the document, though other numbers could fall within that exchange.”

            Please note the words “appear to show”, “impossible to know”, and “though other numbers could fall within that exchange.”

            Not exactly hard news.

            See:
            http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/21/correspondents-association-concerned-government-too-aggressive-in-tracking/?test=latestnews#ixzz2U1u27Eth

            In sum, before you get Fauxtraged, I suggest you read the affidavit and related documents in their entirety, and read the reporting with a more critical eye.

            Again, keep in mind the possibility that everything “you think you know” is inaccurate.

          • Gregg Smith

            Up.

          • hennorama

            Oopsie – replied to the wrong comment.

          • Gregg Smith

            “DOJ Calls Fox News Reporter James Rosen ‘Co-Conspirator’ In Leak Case; Journalists Outraged”

            http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/20/james-rosen-justice-department-co-conspirator-obama_n_3305857.html

            “However, it’s something else entirely to go after a reporter who receives the leak. That’s what federal prosecutors are doing to James Rosen, the chief Washington correspondent for Fox News. And they’re going after him not as a witness to a crime—nor as a pressure tactic to get him to give up his source (in this case, the source has already been caught)—but rather, in the words of a Justice Department affidavit, as “an aider, an abettor, and/or a co-conspirator”: in short, as someone who might be indicted under the Espionage Act.”

            http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2013/05/james_rosen_named_a_co_conspirator_why_is_barack_obama_s_justice_department.html

            The department calls Rosen “an aider and abettor and/or co-conspirator”…”

            http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/05/20/justice-department-names-reporter-co-conspirator-in-leak-case/

            I thought maybe some lefty sites were appropriate. You seem to be arguing because Rosen’s name was not mentioned in the affidavit that he wasn’t named. “The reporter” was named. I never said his name appeared in the affidavit. I’d like to see the warrant that okays surveillance of a reporter without naming him. It seems to me if that were the case (carte blance  witch hunts on reporters, no name necessary) that would outrage you. But then again you are making an argument (unless I misread you) that no one is making, focusing on irrelevant minutia. 

            Speaking of silence. Did I miss it or have you expressed one iota of concern for the overreach of the DOI? You seem to be condoning their actions and giving every doubt the benefit. You make no claim you are playing the devil’s advocate. You preface nothing with, “This is outrageous but…”. You are defending the indefensible and you’re doing with tortured semantics (the definition of “named”) and extremely narrow criteria (only the affidavit) while ignoring what actually happened or refusing to acknowledge what happened without what you consider proof. You are alone.

          • hennorama

            Gregg Smith – allow me to point out the following. I look forward to your response to each point:

            #1 You acknowledged that Mr. Rosen was not named in the affidavit-for-search-warrant. Again, reporting about this document is the entire reason for this “controversy”. Either Mr. Rosen was named in the affidavit or he wasn’t. Either Mr. Rosen was “named a criminal co-conspirator” or he wasn’t. This is not semantics.

            #2 You wrote “ ‘The reporter’ was named.” If this is your argument, then please elaborate as to exactly who “named” “the reporter” and when and where this “naming” occurred.

            If your point is that Mr. Rosen was “named” in media reports, that is another matter entirely. If that is the case, then I would again refer you to the examples of egregiously erroneous reporting mentioned in an earlier post.

            #3 You also wrote “I never said his name appeared in the affidavit” then you write about “tortured semantics” in a negative light. Isn’t your “I never said …” statement also about semantics?

            #4 You originally quoted what you described as “the statement from Fox regarding The DOI of treating James Rosen as a criminal for doing his job”, then you argue that my words use “tortured semantics”. This is despite the fact that your description contains both an unsupported conclusion (“…The DOI of treating James Rosen as a criminal for doing his job”) that was not present in the quote that followed, and a pejorative and inaccurate acronym (DOI), which you later translated as “Department of Injustice as long as Holder remains”.

            One might conclude that you have prejudged this matter. Later statements you made indicated that you had not actually read the documents that are the basis for the “controversy”, as well as that “[you] have no use for a years old affidavit from the Department of Injustice [sic]”. Again, you appear to have drawn conclusions without fully examining the evidence, and your labeling “the Department of Injustice [sic]” indicates your bias.

            #5 Your comment also contains the pre-defensive words “please don’t tell me the links say ‘calls’ and not ‘named’ “. One might view these as “tortured semantics”, yet you complain about “tortured semantics”.

            #6 My commentary has been a disputation of both your original comment, as well as the quote you described as “the statement from Fox …”.

            Mr. Rosen has not been named in the investigation of the Kim case (unless his name is part of the [redacted]@gmail.com account’s designation). Mr. Rosen has not been “named a criminal co-conspirator”. Mr. Rosen has not been charged with any crime. Federal Magistrate Judge Alan Kay signed off on the the search warrant. (BTW – Magistrate Judge Kay was appointed a United States Magistrate Judge in September 1991, during the Pres. Bush I administration).

            #7 As to your links from “some lefty sites”:

            The HuffPo article was about “a fresh round of condemnation by journalists on Monday”.

            The words quoted from the Slate.com piece are opinion only.

            You truncated the full sentence (for some unknown reason – care to explain?) when you quoted Ned Resnikoff’s piece on the MSNBC site. The full sentence is:

            “The department calls Rosen “an aider and abettor and/or co-conspirator” to the leaking of classified materials, in its application for a search warrant, which was approved by a U.S. magistrate judge in May 2010.”

            This sentence is inaccurate in that it gives the false impression that Mr. Rosen’s name appears “in its application for a search warrant, which was approved by a U.S. magistrate judge in May 2010.” Mr. Rosen’s name does not ever appear in that affidavit-for-search-warrant, with the possible exception noted above.

            #8 As to your question:

            Q] “Did I miss it or have you expressed one iota of concern for the overreach of the DOI?” The premise of your question contains an implied conclusion (“overreach”) as well as the aforementioned pejorative acronym (DOI). I do not accept this premise as valid. Please allow me to rephrase, and then to respond:

            “Are you concerned that the FBI and DOJ appear to have investigated a reporter’s personal and work emails, telephone records, and comings and goings without the reporter’s knowledge, as is the usual procedure?”

            Yes, I am. However, I am also concerned about both the alleged leak of TOP SECRET information, as well as a reporter seeming to want to not merely report on a topic, but also to use reporting to further the reporter’s own personal foreign policy views. Allow me to again quote from the affidavit:

            ‘In short; Let’s break some news, and expose muddle-headed policy when we see it – or force the administration’s hand to go in the right direction, if possible. The only way to do this is to EXPOSE the policy, or what the [Foreign Country] is up to …”

            # 9 As to your other various characterizations of my words as:

            “focusing on irrelevant minutia”
            “condoning their actions and giving every doubt the benefit”
            “defending the indefensible”
            “tortured semantics”
            “and extremely narrow criteria”
            “ignoring what actually happened”
            “or refusing to acknowledge what happened without what you consider proof”

            You are entitled to your opinion. I disagree.

            I have expressed no conclusions or opinions on this matter, as I am still weighing the evidence. If you interpret that as “silence” or the other various ways you have characterized my words, so be it. Again, you are entitled to your opinion. I prefer facts and accuracy, and endeavor to avoid prejudging most matters.

            As stated above, I have disputed your words, and “the statement from Fox”.

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        transparency was what oboma promised.

        • hennorama

          Yes, and your point is … ?

        • hennorama

          Yes, and your point is … ?

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            there is less than ever. a government of we the people should not have secrets in from the people

          • hennorama

            Futo Buddy TY for your response.

            Your statement “there is less than ever” is highly questionable and debatable, and I disagree completely with your statement “a government of we the people should not have secrets in [sic] from the people”.

            It is obviously necessary to keep certain items secret for national security reasons, for example.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            i think we would have much better national security with transparancy. transparancy is what the people want. thats why oboma promised it and we voted for him. 

          • Gregg Smith

            Exactly… except for the “we” part.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            fool me once,
            fool me, fool me, fool me,
            we cant get fooled again as the old saying goes

        • Gregg Smith

          It’s easy to make empty promises.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            tell that to the guys who were at git- oh wait they are still there

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          -

  • Gregg Smith

    How lucky is Kathleen Sebelius? Her unethical and unlawful shakedown for political donations from those she had power over is completely overshadowed by the numerous Obama scandals.

  • pete18

    Why all the Obama supporters should not try to shrug off or excuse what’s happening in the White House:

    “First they came for Fox News, and they did not speak out— ”

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/05/21/how-hope-and-change-gave-way-to-spying-on-the-press.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+thedailybeast%2Farticles+%28The+Daily+Beast+-+Latest+Articles%29

  • pete18

    No scandal here, nothing to see, it’s just the Republicans making much to do about nothing, move along: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2328696/Top-IRS-official-invoke-Fifth-Amendment-congressional-hearing-tea-party-targeting-program.html

  • Gregg Smith

    The White House claim that the GOP doctored emails got 3 Pinocchios from Glen Kessler. It’s amazing what ideologues are so eager to believe.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-white-house-claim-of-doctored-e-mails-to-smear-the-president/2013/05/20/a23343b6-c19e-11e2-8bd8-2788030e6b44_blog.html?wprss=rss_fact-checker  

  • Gregg Smith

    Obama has expreseed outrage over the IRS debacle. If true then he should be just as outraged that he was (supposedly) kept in the dark. Are heads rolling? So now we hear Lois Lerner will plead the fifth. He should be spitting mad about it. If he is concerned why isn’t he demanding everyone come forward and comply to the fullest extent? Why? 

  • Gregg Smith

    So now Doug Shulman is changing his tune from previous testimony. What a sleazeball. This stinks.

  • Gregg Smith

    I asked why Obama would not say he, or anyone in the White House, did not know about the IRS debacle. No one had the intellectual honesty to even wonder. One commenter went to embarrassingly unfathomable lengths to avoid the question. Now we know. His lawyer and chief of staff did know. And he knew they knew or he would not have done the dog and pony show. This stinks.

    • Gregg Smith

      So why wouldn’t he say he himself didn’t know about it?

      • hennorama

        Still talking to yourself?

        Sheesh.

        • Gregg Smith

          Still not curious? I gave up asking you after four tries. I was proven right, according White House spokesman Jay Carney, regarding “anyone in the White House”.

          My comment was not directed at you, as I said I gave up with you. However, since you once again avoided the issue to chime in with snark I will point that fact out. I suppose expecting a response is wacko but I’ll ask you anyway: Did you avoid the questions 4 times because you didn’t like the obvious answers? Is it better to avoid the truth if it conflicts with your ideology? Is that honest debate?

          • hennorama

            Please repeat the question.

          • HonestDebate1

            Why? I asked four times and you have no problem referencing anything I’ve ever written. You do it all the time.

  • HonestDebate1

    Wow the Lerner testimony (or lack thereof) was interesting. Trey Gowdy saved the day, thank you Mr. Gowdy.

  • HonestDebate1
  • HonestDebate1

    I don’t lie, I have never changed anything I have only represented the truth. There are not two positions there is only the truth. You wrote: “…like calling Chelsea the White House dog…” 

    There was an event and heads rolled but that never happened. Rush never called Chelsea the White House dog. Ever. I never ever said otherwise. I have no idea what you remember and you don’t say, you just imply I’m lying and I don’t appreciated it. 

    And no, I am not saying Rush just pushes opinion and not facts although I could have been clearer. I was saying you are citing differences of opinion as inaccuracies of fact. You did not cite any fact he got wrong, it was all opinions you disagreed with. And now you just did it again.

    “I don’t really get worked up about much, and I’m certainly not going to do it over some waste of time like Rush, or Glenn Beck or Michael Savage.  Does it concern me that some people end up pushing the falsehoods that they spread?”

    You have not named a falsehood from Rush. Michael Savage?! WTF?! It’s bad enough you lump Rush in with Beck but Savage? And don’t go off on a tangent about Beck either, it’s a different discussion. Rush is in a class all by himself.

    Look, I told you I am not interested in debating talk radio. I was making another point. I wrote: “I have to point out that if you are defining “reliable”, “experts” and “track records” because of what others tell you about someone instead of first hand knowledge you are fooling yourself.”

    I used the word “if” but it is clear after this discussion you have proven me right. I still don’t know if you have looked at the Raspberry and Klaven links but this is a very common occurrence regarding Rush. You have formed your opinions from what others with agendas have told you. You have freely admitted in the past that you dismiss out of hand certain political issues solely based on who makes the argument without even considering the argument. You do the same with science as demonstrated by your recent debate with WFTC and in the past with me. You dismissed NOAA data because of the name of the person who cited it (Goddard). Your history teacher has done a great disservice to you regarding honest debate.

    • Ray in VT

      You don’t lie?  Is that because you choose to believe the lies that you tell?  I assume that you believe what you write, unless you say otherwise, so when you say that Phil Jones says that there has been no warming since 1995, then you are telling a lie.

      As for the Rush incident, he did say something about the White House dog, and then a picture of Chelsea was shown.  He said that it was a technical glitch or something, which is what you said previously.  I don’t believe him, and I will acknowledge that that is a part of my bias.  I distrust him, and, given his history of offensive statements, I doubt his sincerity.

      Facts that Rush got wrong.  Well, let’s see what the Interweb can dredge up quickly.  “Faisal Shahzad is a registered Democrat” – May 4, 2010.  Lie.  “Sherrod Brown is black” – Feb. 14, 2006.  Lie.  Brown is white.  An oldie but goodie “There are more
      American Indians alive today than there were when Columbus arrived or at any
      other time in history.”  That’s a great one, especially in light of how many native cultures and populations were massively decimated by disease and policy since 1492.

      I have formed by opinions on Rush based upon reading about things that he has said, and actually listening and watching him, so don’t tell me how my opinions are formed.  I will certainly dismiss “science” from creationist groups that run counter to actual science, and I see nothing wrong with that.  Discrimination is good, right?  I merely seek to filter out the baseless and unsupported noise that some push, and I will certainly put Rush, Glenn and Savage in that very same boat.  Define that class however you want, but you can’t define it for me.

      I dismiss Goddard because of some of the content on his site which makes him just one more nut on the web.  Now, I gave you a very good reason for questioning his numbers that he says are from NOAA, and I question whether or not they are true.  When one looks at the NOAA site and one looks at their monthly numbers, it would be statistically difficult, based upon the April and March numbers, for the period in question to be the coldest on record.  That is my reason, and I do not trust the source, so don’t try to paint me as some sort closed minded ideologue because I reject what I see as a fairly merit-less point based upon math.  It’s not like I’m tossing out the NAS’s position on global warming in favor of a libertarian think tank aligned former weatherman.  Those two things are not equal, and to treat them as such is a part of the false equivalency that the skeptics have tried to use to spread doubt and confusion, which is pretty much all that they have.  It worked well with cigarettes for a while.

      My professors are very good, intelligent people, and I think that they have done a far better job of educating me regarding debate and the evaluation of sources than anyone has done for you.  You do this entire board a continuing disservice with your repeated dissemination of inaccurate quotes, half truths and conspiracy theories.  That is not a part of honest debate, and you are guilty of doing just those things on here many days.

      • HonestDebate1

        Geez. I’ll look it up later but as I recall Phill Jones said there has been no significant warming since 1998. This was in conflict with the data he gave the UN for the 2007 fourth quarter assessment. And then more recently someone else said 1996 and I think I cited that. I don’t remember anything about 1995 but I could be wrong, I’ll find the direct quote later. And no, I don’t “choose” to believe lies but to that point, it is impossible to lie unless you know you are lying by definition. For instance, I did not accuse you of lying when you said 97% of climate scientist agree without a single caveat. It’s absurd on it’s face. 

        I am basing the Chelsea thing on what I know because I saw it and because it has been beaten like a dead horse since. It’s fine if you don’t trust him but he doesn’t make fun of kids. He doesn’t. Here’s what happened if you care about the truth:

        http://lyingliar.com/?p=17

        I actually remember the Shazad thing and you gave the date so it was easy to look up. His site is searchable. You still may not have got it without the context. You’d have to have heard  the “In a Yugo” parody and heard his diatribes on libs regarding SUV’s.  His entire proof Shazad was a Democrat was because he was driving an SUV. It was a joke, duh! But it was a joke with a purpose and the Marathon bombing shows how things have not changed. The segment was about Bloomberg in particular and Libs in general  assuming it was a tea party guy with no proof whatsoever. He was illustrating absurdity with absurdity he does it all the time and libs fall for it every time. Congrats. Here is the quote:

        Gotta hold out hope it was a tea party guy run amuck. Guess what? Faisal Shahzad is a registered Democrat. I wonder if this SUV had an Obama sticker on it. Faisal Shahzad is a registered Democrat. The original New York Times headline on this was: “US Arrests SUV Owner In Times Square Case.” They then changed it but that was their first headline: “US Arrests SUV Owner.” Fine, so he’s a Democrat.

        Here’s the entire segment:

        http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2010/05/04/bloomberg_obama_disappointed_that_the_bomber_isn_t_a_tea_partier

        I don’t remember the Brown thing and i get the feeling you are implying racism. I guarandamntee
        you he corrected it if what you read is true. He is only documented to be almost always right 99.6% of the time, he corrects the rest. He does’t lie, if he did he would be long gone by now. It is not in his best interest to lie, ever.

        But despite my previous claim, I really am done the time with debating Rush. Been there done that for decades and you are not interested unless the hideous Media Matters tells you to be. I stand by my claim you let others for your opinion for you.

        Why won’t you tell me if you read the Raspberry and Klaven articles?

        I’ll be back at some point with the Phil Jones quote but it’ll take some digging. Once again, I don’t appreciate your calling me a liar. Maybe I got something wrong but I don’t think so. I never lie.

        • HonestDebate1

          I stand corrected it was 1995 not 1998, that’s good news right? But i still remember something about 1998, it may have been someone else. Or I could just be wrong. I had to goggle and google is not knowledge. Unfortunately my brain has had a rough life. Keep in mind this is 3 years old and it’s not been hot. Here’s the quote:

          B – Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?

          Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

          Here’s the interview:

          http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8511670.stm

          • Ray in VT

            I know that quote, as I posted it in a reply to you last week, when I questioned whether or not you knew the difference between no warming and no statistically significant warming.

            Hey, thanks for giving the Costanza Defense again.  Just believe a lie and that gets you off the hook, right?  I’ll take the dictionary’s definition of lie over yours any day, so spare me your made up definitions.

            Where is the documentation for his claim for being 99.6% right?  I would like to see an actual document, if it actually exists, which I doubt.

            I have not read the Raspberry or Klaven articles.  My time is somewhat limited, so I make certain choices about what I do with it.  For instance, I do not have the time to post 100 plus comments per week for over a year, and your tally really has gone up lately.  Things must be slow for you.  Hold on, I have to check Media Matters on my Obamaphone.

          • HonestDebate1

            I first brought it up in 2010. I believe I’ve always said “significant” but maybe I got sloppy once out of the gazillion times I said it. And I reiterated it to you before I looked it up. I got the year wrong but I got the significant part right. Ray really, do you not see the significance of the data he gave to the IPCC being wrong? Do you really not understand the the stunning admission after the fact? Or is petty semantics all that matters?

            I don’t even know who Costanza is but I do know the dictionary (and common sense) definition of “lie”: To make an untrue statement with intent to deceive. You are really out on a limb. Did you intend to deceive by saying 97% of climate scientist agree? I gave you the benefit of the doubt.

            Raspberry was a very respected hard core liberal. He wrote that Rush was a bigot based on what others had told him. He was swamped with complaints so he listened and realized he was wrong and apologized. And please, your just avoiding the words of those who did what you are doing. You probably read them or at least looked at them. That’s why I had to beg you to comment on them. 

            “Where is the documentation for his claim for being 99.6% right? “

            I didn’t say he was 99.6% right. He didn’t say it. No one did. You still don’t get it. He’s playing you like a fiddle as he has so many libs for so very long.

          • Ray in VT

            I think that your use of quotes is far sloppier than one bad use out of a gazillion.

            “”It’s not a lie if you believe it!” – George Costanza.

            Merriam-Webster:  “to create a false or misleading impression”

            You have certainly done that, or sought to, with your shoddy quotes, and it is upon various dictionary definitions such as that, which I have cited to you previously, that I base my allegation.

            “I didn’t say he was 99.6% right.”

            “He is only documented to be almost always right 99.6% of the time” – you from earlier in this thread.

            I have based my opinion regarding that opinion of the scientific community based upon polls and peer-reviewed articles.  I use that as evidence, not the complaints of three well established skeptics.  Where is the skeptic’s survey of the scientific community?  I have yet to see it.

            Perhaps I am playing you like a fiddle.  You have said that you don’t want to talk about this stuff, yet here you are…

          • HonestDebate1

            Perfect, you used Merriam as I did so I know you saw the definition I cited as the #1 and the one you cited as #2. You know what a lie is but if you insist I’ll agree and say you lied when you said 97% of climate scientist agree. There is no way you can say that characterization is not misleading.

            Fair point about playing me because I am complying, it’s just too rich. And I will explain the Rush thing to you on the current Board to make sure you see it.

  • worldemoc

    About the IRS spending money to enthuse it’s employees, what $40 billion a year industry doesn’t do that kind of thing.  I’ve worked at much smaller operations that did events for the employees —  So BIG DEAL !~!    What I want to see is Somebody Going to JAIL for Targeting Individuals or Groups.  That’s not the role of a United States Government Agency!!!!
      As regards the Sexual Harassment in the Military…..That sort of thing could be seen coming way back down the road.   Whenever you load lots of Women in with lots of Men (and now Homos too), some serious things might be happening -no doubt.  However, I believe and it has happened to me that when a man happens to look at a female sideways or maybe asks for a date possibly awkwardly, quite a few of them Scream Harassment.   Give Women the Power to Scream Harassment and they will abuse that power nine times out of ten!

ONPOINT
TODAY
Jul 22, 2014
Smoke rises after an Israeli shelling at the Shijaiyah neighborhood in Gaza City, Monday, July 21, 2014. The top Hamas leader in the Gaza Strip signaled Monday that the Islamic militant group will not agree to an unconditional cease-fire with Israel, while Israel's defense minister pledged to keep fighting "as long as necessary," raising new doubt about the highest-level mediation mission in two weeks. (AP)

The escalated Gaza offensive. We’ll get the views from both sides and the latest developments.

Jul 22, 2014
Lt. Col. James Howard Williams, aka "Elephant Bill," is the hero of Vicki Constantine Croke's new book, "Elephant Company." (Courtesy Random House)

We’ll travel to the jungles of Burma for the remarkable true story of Billy Williams—aka “the elephant whisperer”—and his World War II heroism.

RECENT
SHOWS
Jul 21, 2014
In this May 15, 2014, file photo, Senate Veterans Affairs Committee Chairman Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., speaks on Capitol Hill in Washington, during a committee hearing to examine the state of Veterans Affairs health care. (AP)

Will he run for president? We’ll ask Vermont’s Independent U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders.

 
Jul 21, 2014
Toys and flowers are placed on the charred fuselage at the crash site of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 near the village of Hrabove, eastern Ukraine, Sunday, July 20, 2014. (AP)

The United States and Russia after the downed plane. We’ll unpack the politics and latest news. Plus: the latest from Gaza.

On Point Blog
On Point Blog
Our Week In The Web: July 11, 2014
Friday, Jul 11, 2014

As we prepare for a week of rebroadcasts, we reflect on Facebook posts, misplaced comments and the magic of @ mentions. Internet, ASSEMBLE!

More »
Comment
 
Two Former Senators, One Fix For US Democracy?
Thursday, Jul 10, 2014

Former US Senators Tom Daschle and Olympia Snowe joined us today with a few fixes for American political inaction.

More »
Comment
 
Future Radio Interns Of America: On Point Wants YOU!
Thursday, Jul 10, 2014

On Point needs interns for the fall. Could YOU be one of them?

More »
2 Comments