Republican Lindsey Graham said today that he’d be willing to censor our mail if he thought it would help catch terrorists.

O goody: Republican Lindsey Graham said today that he’d be willing to censor our mail if he thought it would help catch terrorists.

“In World War II, the mentality of the public was that our whole way of life was at risk, we’re all in. We censored the mail. When you wrote a letter overseas, it got censored. When a letter was written back from the battlefield to home, they looked at what was in the letter to make sure they were not tipping off the enemy,” Graham, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, told reporters on Capitol Hill. “If I thought censoring the mail was necessary, I would suggest it, but I don’t think it is.”

This guy hasn’t a clue. The example he gives does not apply, as a military officer is under a different set of rules than ordinary citizens. If we do as he suggests, we will lower ourselves to the level of the thugs and dictators and bullies we supposedly oppose.

Then again, I’m not sure we haven’t done this already.

The whistleblower who leaked the NSA surveillance program to the press has gone public.

The whistleblower who leaked the NSA surveillance program to the press has gone public and is talking. Key quote:

Q: Does your family know you are planning this?

A: “No. My family does not know what is happening … My primary fear is that they will come after my family, my friends, my partner. Anyone I have a relationship with

I will have to live with that for the rest of my life. I am not going to be able to communicate with them. They [the authorities] will act aggressively against anyone who has known me. That keeps me up at night.” [emphasis mine]

It tells us how far the United States has fallen if this man fears our government so much he thinks that government will go after his family.

Read the whole interview. It is quite horrifying, especially now that we know there are federal agents willing to use their power to target specific people solely because of their politics.

The National Security Agency can secretly access user data provided by as many as fifty American companies, ranging from credit rating agencies to internet service providers.

The National Security Agency can secretly access user data provided by as many as fifty American companies, ranging from credit rating agencies to internet service providers.

The furor this week over this NSA snoop scandal is fascinating to me. The snooping really isn’t news, as it has been known for years that the NSA delves into these kinds of records in its effort to identify terrorist activity.

So, why the sudden furor and outrage? Up until a few weeks ago, most Americans assumed the federal government restricted this kind of snooping to foreign sources and to specifically hunting for terrorists. Now, however, after the IRS scandal, the public realizes that this government, under Obama at least, is quite willing to abuse its power for partisan political reasons. Under Obama, the IRS was used to target innocent Americans, merely because they disagreed with Obama. The public now realizes that it is also likely that this administration will abuse its access to the private information gathered by NSA, and that sends chills up people’s spines.

Thus, the furor. This kind of snooping is suddenly perceived as a real threat to Americans.

Despite the failure of any climate model to predict the climate, the Obama administration is increasing the cost and strictness of regulation because of what it sees as the “social cost of carbon dioxide.”

Despite the failure of any climate model to predict the climate, the Obama administration is increasing the cost and strictness of regulation because of what it sees as the “social cost of carbon dioxide.”

[E]ssentially, the government is now incorporating newer climate models that capture the future damage from sea-level rise more explicitly. Those models also project that agriculture will suffer more heavily in a hotter world. So, in its central estimate, the federal government now assumes a ton of carbon-dioxide emitted in 2013 does roughly $36 in damage, rather than its previous estimate of $22, with the value rising each year.

Meanwhile, new data also suggests increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere might actually be beneficial, not damaging.

Shouldn’t the EPA and the Obama administration get their heads out of the sand?

Two IRS employees in Cincinnati have told congressional investigators that officials in Washington directed and established the policy of harassing conservative groups that began in 2010.

Two IRS employees in Cincinnati have told congressional investigators that officials in Washington directed and established the policy of harassing conservative groups that began in 2010.

I especially like this quote:

Hofacre said she was outraged last month when IRS higher-ups, including Lois Lerner, then the head of the IRS tax-exempt division, blamed the problem on employees in Cincinnati. “I was furious,” Ms. Hofacre told interviewers. “It looked like Lois Lerner was putting it on us.”

Yup, that is exactly what Lerner was doing — looking for a fall guy.

A new report from Social Security has raised its predicted unfunded liabilities over the next 75 years by one trillion dollars.

The day of reckoning looms: A new report from Social Security has raised its predicted unfunded liabilities over the next 75 years by one trillion dollars, for a total of $9.6 trillion.

According to the report, “Through the end of 2087, the combined funds [OASI and DI] have a present-value unfunded obligation of $9.6 trillion.” That is “$1.0 trillion more than the measured level of $8.6 trillion a year ago,” states the report, in reference to the data available for 2011. That $9.6 trillion shortfall equals approximately $83,894 per household based on the Census Bureau’s latest estimate that there are 114,430,000 households in the country.

The report also looks farther into the future and saw the shortfall rise to $23 trillion.

“I can say with a very strong sense of certainty that there are people very close to this president that not only knew what the IRS were doing but authorized it.”

“I can say with a very strong sense of certainty that there are people very close to this president that not only knew what the IRS were doing but authorized it.”

Said by an ABC news reporter today.

In related news, it appears that the IRS not only targeted conservative organizations which applied for tax exempt status, the tax agency also targeted the donors to those organizations.

Transcript excerpts of House testimony by two IRS employees show that the policy to harass conservatives was ordered by supervisors in Washington.

Transcript excerpts of House testimony by two IRS employees show that the policy to harass conservatives was ordered by supervisors in Washington.

When these employees testify publicly, it will not be pretty for the Obama administration. The next question will of course be: Who were those supervisors, and who gave them their orders?

When Lois Lerner worked for the FEC she offered to drop a case against a conservative if he promised never to run for office again.

Working for the Democratic Party: When IRS thug Lois Lerner worked for the FEC she offered to drop a case against a conservative running for the Senate if he promised never to run for office again.

The conservative refused, and the case went to court, where all charges were dismissed. Nonetheless, the conservative subsequently decided that the harassment from the government, which also included a visit from the FBI, was not worth it, and has not run for office since.

In other words, Lerner’s harassment worked, to the benefit of the Democratic Party.

The IRS has told a House investigation that almost 90 IRS agents were involved in harassment scandal.

The IRS has told a House investigation that almost 90 IRS agents were involved in harassment scandal.

If I was Obama and had anything at all to do with this policy, I would be very very nervous. With this many IRS agents involved it will be impossible to control this scandal. Someone is going to spill the beans and tell us who established this harassment policy, and it certainly wasn’t some “low level rogue agents”, as Lois Lerner first claimed.

The IRS has refused to meet the deadline for answering questions put to it by the Senate Finance Committee concerning its harassment of conservatives.

Above the law: The IRS has refused to meet the deadline for answering questions put to it by the Senate Finance Committee concerning its harassment of conservatives.

The questions were focused on trying to find out exactly who established the IRS’s policy in this scandal. If Obama was as outraged as he claims about this, and had nothing to do with it, he should have been very willing to make the IRS respond to this quickly. That they are instead stonewalling once again tells us that they, and Obama, do not really want the public to know who conceived the harassment policy. I wonder why.

“Their collective experiences at a minimum could spread skepticism about the fairness of a powerful agency that should be above reproach and at worst could point to a secret political vendetta within the government against conservatives.”

“Their collective experiences at a minimum could spread skepticism about the fairness of a powerful agency that should be above reproach and at worst could point to a secret political vendetta within the government against conservatives.”

An attorney for the Obama Justice Department is warning Americans they could be prosecuted if they use social media to criticize Muslims.

Working for Islam: An attorney for the Obama Justice Department is warning Americans they could be prosecuted if they use social media to criticize Muslims.

In other words, Muslims can commit murders and terrorists acts, but don’t you dare say anything bad about them or else the Obama administration will come after you. And based on the IRS scandal, they are very much willing to do it.

One of the IRS agents who signed letters harassing conservatives was recently promoted.

One of the IRS agents who signed letters harassing conservatives was recently promoted.

Through 2012, then-Exempt Organization Specialist Stephen Seok signed many of the intimidating letters sent to conservative nonprofits. For example, this January 2012 letter sent to the Richmond Tea Party demanded the date, time and location of all group events, as well as copies of all handouts provided at the events, and the names and credentials of all organizers. Seok also demanded the names of all speakers and the contents of the speeches they made.

According to WXIX-TV/Fox 19 in Cincinnati, Seok is no longer an exempt organization specialist. He has since been promoted to “supervisor IRS agent.”

Remember, don’t listen to what Obama says, watch what he actually does. Expressions of outrage mean nothing if he rewards the agents involved.

College students gladly sign a big thank you card to the IRS for specifically targeting conservatives for harassment.

Future fascists: College students gladly sign a big thank you card to the IRS for specifically targeting conservatives for harassment. With video.

I repeat: The problem here isn’t that the IRS was researching and challenging organizations that wanted tax exempt status. The problem is that the IRS chose to only challenge (and harass) conservative organizations. The partisan and political nature of the agency’s actions is unacceptable in a civilized society. This video suggests that we no longer live in one.

The bankruptcy of modern journalism.

The bankruptcy of modern journalism.

The story focuses on CBS’s Sharyl Attkisson, one of the few establishment reporters willing to do some hardnosed investigation of the Obama administration, and the rumors that say she might be dumped by CBS because of this. Key quote, from her:

“[The White House and Justice Department] will tell you that I’m the only reporter — as they told me — that is not reasonable,” Attkisson told Ingraham. “They say The Washington Post is reasonable, the L.A. Times is reasonable, The New York Times is reasonable, I’m the only one who thinks this is a story, and they think I’m unfair and biased by pursuing it.”

Reporters should always be unreasonable when responding to the talking points of politicians. That so many establishment news outlets today try to be “reasonable” while condemning the few reporters who are tough tells us that this industry has been co-opted and is no longer trustworthy.

1 220 221 222 223 224 246