Consequences of Whoring by the Modern American College Lefty Female

For more than thirty years university leftist females and others have redesigned and redefined education in America’s colleges of ‘education’, the classes in the social sciences (meaning MARXIST AND FEMINIST STUDIES) and have revolutionized teaching and the curriculum reducing thought to become one mind, one party, one country….. the ‘mind’ of female body creating peace and harmony….. and equality, at last. Whoring is in…..learning is out.

Whoring might be becoming the intellectual sport of the curricula and its lefty products.

Mark Waldeland sent the following article:

If Women Ran the World
May 21, 2013
Elizabeth Scalia
Writing for The Atlantic in September of 2012, Hanna Rosin argued that the “hookup culture” so prevalent on college campuses and in the lives of young adults is “an engine of female progress—one being harnessed and driven by women themselves.” She wrote:

To put it crudely, feminist progress right now largely depends on the existence of the hookup culture. And to a surprising degree, it is women—not men—who are perpetuating the culture, especially in school, cannily manipulating it to make space for their success, always keeping their own ends in mind.

For college girls these days, an overly serious suitor fills the same role an accidental pregnancy did in the 19th century: a danger to be avoided at all costs, lest it get in the way of a promising future.

In other words, women have succeeded in becoming the men they hated. . .

[ . . . ]

[In] Mary Eberstadt’s just-released book How the West Really Lost God. Eberstadt challenges the accepted notion that faith supports marriage and the family, asking whether it is not actually the other way around—that the forming of families leads to faith.

Eberstadt makes the case that through committed human love we find God, and that this is particularly true in the transcendent experience of parenthood. The utterly new love that enters the world through childbirth leads us to acknowledge something that is greater than ourselves, and worthy of our gratitude.

Bit by bit we can see in such meditation the beginnings of an intuitively resonant account of how Christianity (and likely other religions too) really waxes and wanes in the world. . . . The Christian story itself is a story told through the prism of the family. Take away the prism and the story makes less sense.

Parents are the most fundamental defenders of life; they will die for their children’s sakes. Disrupt the family and you disrupt life, but not death. Death goes on. Our increasingly secular society sanctions abortion and euthanasia and battles to celebrate sterile unions that cannot naturally populate the world. We are in dissolution, so lonely that we are killing ourselves, so earth-bound in our thinking that we throw people away. . . .

[entire article: http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2013/05/if-women-ran-the-world ]

Truth Will Out…..ObamaLies about Obama “Innocence” in Scandals are becoming Known

OBAMA MUST PROTECT GOVERNMENT UNIONS IN IRS SCANDAL

BY Chris Stirewalt at Fox News:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/21/obama-must-protect-government-unions-in-irs-scandal/

The White House has changed its story about who knew what and when as it relates to the targeting of President Obama’s political enemies by the IRS.

While it might help with the press and public to crack down on the IRS as former President Bill Clinton once did, Obama may not be able to take on this key part of the Democratic constituency. Times have changed and so has the Democratic base.

That’s not a good thing. Prior to the story switch, the White House was able to hold the line that Team Obama had been direct and forthcoming about the IRS abuses and that the president and his top aides learned about the scandal in the news. They were just as shocked as everyone else.

But now we know that White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough was clued in about a damning report on IRS misconduct and that word was also sent to top aides to Treasury Secretary Jack Lew so his department could brace for the news. But White House Press Secretary Jay Carney was adamant that no one told President Obama.

There’s a question here about why the president’s top lawyer and chief of staff kept this news from him, even as they were spreading the word beyond the White House. One supposes it was to preserve plausible deniability for the president and to afford him the chance to express shock when word came out. It also bought Obama some more time to address the scandal.

There are some immediate repercussions to the changing story line.

First, it further damages the credibility of Carney and the White House communications team, which in recent weeks has had to fess up about misleading the press about a raid by Islamist militants on a U.S. diplomatic outpost in Libya and try to explain away the heavy-handed tactics used against reporters by the Obama Justice Department.

The president and his team have consistently limited their statements to the report on the wrongdoing, not the wrongdoing itself. It remains unclear if there had been any advance warnings sent to the White House about the misconduct itself, rather than just the report. This may prove important later when investigators are poring over emails and records, but for now it reinforces the sense that the administration is withholding.

And if it does ever come out that anyone in Obamaland had warning of the actual misconduct, legalistic answers will be little protection, especially from reporters and congressional investigators. As on the Benghazi raid, it wouldn’t be much help to rely on parsing.

Second, the Monday story shift raises some questions of competency. What kind of a White House counselor and chief of staff would try to keep a lid on a scandal that involves the most disliked federal agency targeting the president’s adversaries? Doing so in furtherance of a weak communications strategy would be very poor judgment indeed.

Whatever reasons Obama’s top advisers had for keeping the news from him and then allowing the communications office to put forward an inaccurate narrative, it is important to understand that the underlying motives here go beyond dealing with the press and public.

With some 100,000 employees fanned out across the nation, the IRS is one of the brightest stars in the constellation of government worker unions. And government worker unions are perhaps the most important, most influential part of the Democratic coalition. Whatever the president does concerning the federal workforce is a matter of massive political significance.

Some conservative outlets have pointed to a March 31, 2010 visit by Colleen Kelley, president of the National Treasury Employees Union, to the White House campus as evidence of some collusion with the president to target his enemies since the visit came just before the targeting of Obama’s enemies began. That’s poppycock. She was there for a big dog and pony show on “workplace flexibility,” not some hush-hush huddle with Obama.

But Kelley has been a frequent visitor. Excluding five executive branch visits for big events and parties, records show another five visits by a Colleen Kelley for high-level meetings that go un-described, including a December 2011 visit to the West Wing with Obama as her host.

Kelley’s access and influence reflects the clout of her union, especially ahead of Obama’s re-election effort.

With private-sector unions spinning down to insignificance, government worker unions are the only growth area for organized labor. But even that has been problematic, as states continue to crack down on powerful government worker unions and local governments find expensive payrolls and benefits packages unaffordable. On the federal level, pay freezes and furloughs have taken their toll too.

Obama has been able to keep his political patrons on board by reminding them how much worse things would be under Republican control. But they still want much more from Obama than he has been willing or able to provide.

Consider, then, what would happen if the White House really got serious about the IRS scandal and appointed an outsider to come in and start scouring. Government worker unions would be furious and the chance that a low-level employee would make a high-level accusation of wrongdoing would go way up.

Obama is obliged politically and practically to protect unionized government workers. He owes them and they may hold the key to insulating his administration from the worst of the scandal. While it might help with the press and public to crack down on the IRS as former President Bill Clinton once did, Obama may not be able to take on this key part of the Democratic constituency. Times have changed and so has the Democratic base.

The involvement of these powerful political patrons may help explain not only why Obama isn’t showing more spine on the scandal but also why his top aides were so anxious and secretive about news of the scandal itself.

Chris Stirewalt is digital politics editor for Fox News.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/21/obama-must-protect-government-unions-in-irs-scandal/#ixzz2TzcCdfWW

Tornados…..And the Lefty University Dogma of No Difference Between Human Female and Male

Tornado Disaster and Death in Oklahoma

http://galleries.realclearpolitics.com/gallery/Oklahoma_Tornado

Twenty, twenty five or so years ago, perhaps during black and white television time, I remember watching a telecast of what was left of a devastating tornado which had leveled a suburb of Austin, Texas. This community was a large collection of newly built
modestly styled and priced homes designed for young families and their children.

The telecast crew’s camera recorded nothing but devastation as far as the eye could reach. Nothing was standing. Only mile after mile, as far as could be seen wreakage matched wreakage as if in lone harmony. I don’t believe anyone actually died from this trauma which was unbelievable when examining the scenes.

The teleview was the morning after.

Already young homeowners, now without a home, were at the scene performing their God-given duties (as I would call them)…….or performing the drives of their natural DNA thrust upon them from a million years of continuous cellular development, (as I could call them as accurately, but unfortunately less religiously, less emotionally, less human.

Now guess what the televised scenes ‘reported’ to the viewing audience what the performers at the scenes of the rubble were up to……were actually doing, programmed to do, in other words, were performing as their DNA directed……(in other words, exercising their God-given duties?)

Guess? Imagine this scene of total devastation as could ever be perceived. What was the human male doing? What was the human female doing? What were the human offspring of these parents doing?

The parents were in their thirties to the person, so how old probably were their children?

Many of the flattened structures were simply flattened with no human activity apparent at the televised moment. Where humans did occur, appearing, it seemed, at the majority of used-to-be lots of liveable family homes, the picture was UNIVERSALLY the same:

The guy, or two guys were rummaging through the minced pie of debris to collect the salvageable…..the danger job as verified by the news reporter. Somewhere, streetside, adjacent to each of these personal piles of debris, stood a young mother with a baby at her shoulder, and a three-year-old pulling at her side as the mother was petting the child’s head or shoulder. Most of the mothers were in tears…..yet consoling those around them, as the father workers did their DNA thing…..try to pick up whatever pickable pieces might have value……pictures, money, clothes, the occasional collection of things miraculously untouched.

The modern American universities……the ones which programmed Barack Hussein Obama, his wife, the members of his cabinet, Obamalings all, in their behavior and politics, have been preaching a new religion…..Marxism….”Since their is no God” is their assumption, “We of the gifted Left, having gone to college and graduate school, have the ‘Natural’ duty, being superior in their birth and experience, to replace God as gods to develop and control the “nature” of human society TO FORCE the people to become equal based on their politically contrived dogma, “There is no difference between human female and male in behavior except for socialization.”

In other words Obamalings by dogma are devoted to the tenet that we can train males to be females and females to be males by schoolings and cultural controls.

The following is a collection of photos, I believe randomly taken without Obamaling or Christian view religious purposes…..Let your eyes guide your mind.

http://galleries.realclearpolitics.com/gallery/Oklahoma_Tornado

Dennis Prager: On Using Parents of Murdered Children

On Using Parents of Murdered Children
Tuesday, May 21, 2013
ShareThis

The president appeared at many rallies on behalf of additional gun control laws with parents of children murdered at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut.

I have a question for those who agree with the president’s use of these suffering souls.

How would you react if a pro-death penalty president travelled across the country with parents of murdered children — on behalf of capital punishment? After all, outside of strongly liberal locales, the great majority of parents whose children have been murdered support the death penalty for murder. And more than a few of these parents who do live in liberal areas feel similarly.

I recall a phone call to my radio show from a woman who told me that she had always been against capital punishment and therefore always disagreed with me on this issue.

But she was calling to tell me that she had changed her mind.

“And why have you changed your mind?” I asked.

“Because my brother was recently murdered,” she responded.

Needless to say, I offered the woman my most heartfelt condolences. To have a loved one murdered adds intense anger to already intense grief. So I truly commiserated with her.

But I didn’t end there. I told her (gently) that it was sad that it took the murder of her brother to come to realize the cosmic injustice of allowing all murderers to live and that capital punishment is a moral imperative. Why, I asked her, hadn’t the tens of thousands of other people’s brothers who were murdered not moved to her to support capital punishment?

She sorrowfully agreed.

So then, what if President George W. Bush had toured the country on behalf of capital punishment with this woman and with dozens of others whose loved ones had been murdered? How would those who support President Obama’s appearances with Sandy Hook parents have reacted to that?

We all know the answer. The news media and the Democratic politicians that enthusiastically approved of President Obama’s multiple appearances with Sandy Hook parents (including flying with the president on Air Force One) would have vehemently protested against President Bush’s appearing with parents of murdered children in support of capital punishment.

Nevertheless, I am not arguing that President Obama necessarily did something wrong or irresponsible in appearing with Sandy Hook parents.

I am arguing two other things.

One is that the media and the Democratic Party are intellectually and morally dishonest when they approve of, and feature, Sandy Hook parents. The press and the Democrats would have relentlessly yelled “foul,” “beyond the pale,” “demagoguery” and “using human props” had George W. Bush done the same thing on behalf of the death penalty. And one can only imagine the vitriol if a Republican president were to travel with parents of murdered children who opposed further gun control.

Democrats and Republicans should always ask themselves how they would speak and act if the shoe were on the other foot.

My second argument is that there is nothing to be learned from the Sandy Hook parents’ support of more gun control. That support is neither morally nor intellectually persuasive. Its appeal is entirely emotional. It may be understandable, but it is still sad that these parents have used the emotional pull that their horrific pain exerts on all of us and expended it entirely on expanding gun control measures that would have in no way prevented Adam Lanza, a sick and evil man, from taking their children’s lives.

Had their child’s murderer been committed to a psychiatric hospital, or (as absurd as it sounds to many Connecticut voters and to the editors of the New York Times) had he been an active member of a church community — some of us believe that either or both of these would have had a considerably better chance than more gun control in preventing those murders.

Assuming, then, that neither the media nor the Democrats would complain if a Republican leader were to do on behalf of capital punishment what President Obama did on behalf of more gun control, one cannot argue that the president’s use of Sandy Hook parents was inherently irresponsible.

Where the president indisputably crossed over into demagoguery was in his repeated implication that those Americans who oppose his gun control proposals care less than he does about these parents’ pain and about the murder of children in general. That, to put it mildly, compromised the dignity of his office.

Ironically — at least in the eyes of the president and his supporters — those of us who want as many good people as possible to own guns (and therefore more likely able to stop those who are about to, or in the midst of committing, murder), and those of us who want to execute most murderers, hold these positions precisely because we do weep for the parents of murdered children.

Obama’s White House now shifting shifty stories about IRS scandal

WHITE HOUSE’S SHIFTING IRS ACCOUNT from Politico

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/the-white-houses-shifting-irs-account-91638.html

Scandals Expose the Truth about Obama……Followers Follow Their Leader

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/2013/05/15/scandals_expose_the_truth_about_obama_307733.html

The Politics of Psychiatry: Playing Games with its Bible in Obamatime

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders is often called the “Bible” of psychiatric diagnosis, and the term is apt. The DSM consists of instructions from on high; readers usually disagree in their interpretations of the text; and believing it is an act of faith.

At least the Bible lists only 10 Commandments; the DSM grows by leaps and bounds with every revision. The first edition, published by the American Psychiatric Association in 1952, was a spiral-bound pamphlet that described 11 categories of mental disorder, including brain syndromes, personality problems and psychotic disorders. (The final category, “Nondiagnostic Terms for the Hospital Record,” contained Dead on Admission, the one diagnosis that psychiatrists have ever agreed on.) The DSM-II (1968) made homosexuality a mental disorder, a decision revoked by vote in 1973. In the general excitement about that progressive decision, few noted that voting didn’t seem to be the most scientific way of determining mental illness. Narcissistic Personality Disorder was voted out in 1968 and voted back in 1980; where did it go for 12 years? Doctors don’t vote on whether pneumonia is a disease.

.The DSM-III (1980) was an effort to jettison outdated theories and terms such as “neurosis” and replace them with an objective list of disorders with agreed-upon symptoms. The DSM-IIIR (1987) was 567 pages and included nearly 300 disorders. The DSM-IV (1994, slightly revised in 2000) was 900 pages and contained nearly 400 disorders. The new DSM-5, with its modernized Arabic number, is 947 pages. It contains, along with serious mental illnesses, “binge-eating disorder” (whose symptoms include “eating when not feeling physically hungry”), “caffeine intoxication,” “parent-child relational problem” and my favorite, “antidepressant discontinuation syndrome.” Now psychiatrists can treat the symptoms of going off antidepressants, which is good because the expanded criteria for many disorders allows doctors to prescribe antidepressants more often for more problems. Gone is the “bereavement exemption,” for example. You used to get two weeks after a loved one died before you could be diagnosed with major depression and medicated. Now you get two minutes.

If people treated the DSM the way most treat the other Bible—nod their heads to it, say they believe in it and continue sinning—we might be all right. Many psychotherapists who still practice therapy, rather than prescribe a cocktail of Zoloft and Risperdal with a tincture of Ritalin, do just that. They find a label that suits, for insurance purposes, and then get on with helping the client.

.But the DSM has grown too powerful to ignore; it is the linchpin of the pharmaceutical-medical complex. Adding more disorders allows doctors to be compensated for treating any kind of problem, from garden-variety sorrow to incapacitating depression. Drug companies encourage new disorders so that they can create medications or repackage old ones: Prozac, when its patent expired, was renamed Sarafem to treat “Premenstrual Dysphoric Disorder.” PMDD had been relegated to the kids’ table (that is, an appendix) in the DSM-IV, thanks to protests by women clinicians who wondered why menstrual symptoms constitute a “mental disorder” when, say, Hypertestosterone Hostility Disorder is nowhere to be found. Alas, PMDD has moved to the adults’ table in the DSM-5. HHD is still MIA.

.Criticism of the DSM began to coalesce in the 1990s, with Stuart Kirk and Herb Kutchins’s “The Selling of DSM” (1992) and “Making Us Crazy” (1997), as well as Paula Caplan’s “They Say You’re Crazy” (1996). Now, Gary Greenberg, a psychotherapist and the author of “Manufacturing Depression” (2010), and Allen Frances, a psychiatrist who was task-force chair of the revision of the fourth DSM, have joined the chorus of critics. Their books share the goal of skewering the pretensions of the latest revision and using what is wrong about the DSM to remind us of what diagnosis and therapy should be for. But they diverge in one crucial way: Dr. Frances is sitting on the fence about what the DSM’s power means for psychiatry; Mr. Greenberg has leapt over it.

In “The Book of Woe,” Mr. Greenberg takes us on a rollicking journey from the DSM-5′s inception to its publication, regaling us with stories, alternately hilarious and infuriating, of internecine battles, personality clashes and political machinations. Mr. Greenberg is an outsider by virtue of not being a psychiatrist but an insider by virtue of serving as one of the investigators involved in field-testing some proposed diagnoses on actual patients. He interviewed the major players; he watched as feathers were ruffled and smoothed; he attended conferences, documenting with growing disbelief the failures of the American Psychiatric Association’s task forces to produce the scientific results they had aimed for.

And he was there when those scientific aspirations met reality and all hell broke loose. Mr. Greenberg gives us a front-row seat at the APA’s annual meeting in 2011, when results of the field trials were reported. Field trials are intended to test the reliability of diagnostic criteria—meaning that two psychiatrists observing the same person’s symptoms should have a pretty good chance of agreeing on a diagnosis. But the results were dismal. Agreement on identifying even Major Depressive Disorder and Generalized Anxiety Disorder—what Mr. Greenberg calls the “Dodge Dart and Ford Falcon of the DSM, simple and reliable and ubiquitous” disorders—was low. Moreover, the field testing on patients failed miserably: 5,000 clinicians signed up to participate, 195 finished training for it, and only 70 enrolled any patients in trials. The APA tried to put a good spin on these numbers —”nearly 150 patients have joined the study”—ignoring, Mr. Greenberg notes, that their goal was 10,000. Only two months before the data had to be in, the clinician field trials had barely begun.

Why would the APA rush publication in spite of unfinished field trials and failures to find high reliability among clinicians, the very things that their claims to a scientific DSM rely on? Do the math, Mr. Greenberg answers. In recent years, the APA has been steadily losing income from dwindling membership and dwindling ad revenues for its journals. The DSM-IV, which has earned $100 million, keeps the organization in the black. Faced with a looming deadline and terrible data, Mr. Greenberg suggests, the DSM directors did what any reasonable, self-protecting institution would do: They lowered the statistical criteria for acceptable standards of reliability and turned defeat into victory. As Allen Frances puts it in “Saving Normal,” they accepted agreements among raters that were “sometimes barely better than two monkeys throwing darts at a diagnostic board.”

I encountered Allen Frances in the pages of Mr. Greenberg’s book before I read his own. Mr. Greenberg’s conversations, emails, and debates with Dr. Frances are woven through his narrative, and Dr. Frances emerges as funny, furious, defensive and courageous. Allies and adversaries, they never agree on whether criticizing the DSM is good for psychiatry or bad. Mr. Greenberg wonders whether he is helping to undermine a profession “that offers the last and only hope for some patients” with psychosis and other severe disorders. But he concludes that the truth needs to be told: Even in the hands of “honest and eloquent men” such as Dr. Frances, he writes, “psychiatric diagnosis is built on fiction and sold to the public as fact.”

Dr. Frances can’t go that far. “My critique,” he makes sure we know, “is directed only against the excesses of psychiatry, not its heart or soul.” In conversations with Mr. Greenberg, he worries that his words will be misused “by the antipsychiatry fanatics” who oppose psychiatric diagnosis and treatment altogether. “The field is a lot better,” he says, “than anyone would assume watching the DSM-5 follies unfold.”

Accordingly, in “Saving Normal,” Dr. Frances attempts the delicate task of debunking the DSM-5 while justifying his own DSM-IV. He was alarmed by the DSM-5′s proposals of “new diagnoses that would turn everyday anxiety, eccentricity, forgetting, and bad eating habits into mental disorders.” His 6-year-old twin grandsons wouldn’t have tantrums any more but “disruptive mood dysregulation disorder,” and his own normal forgetting of names and faces would be “mild neurocognitive disorder.” Yet the DSM-IV gave us a Disorder of Written Expression, Caffeine-Induced Sleep Disorder and Age-related Cognitive Decline, all of which I suffer on every deadline.

Dr. Frances describes his book as “part mea culpa, part j’accuse, part cri de coeur.” The mea culpa is admirable but also gives him the greatest difficulty. When he was at the helm, he contends, pet proposals were “consistently shot down” if the science wasn’t there to support them. The DSM-IV committees were “boringly modest in our goals, obsessively meticulous in our methods, and rigidly conservative in our product.” “Methodological rigor,” he claims, was their hallmark, even as he acknowledges that “all of our diagnoses are now based on subjective judgments that are inherently fallible and prey to capricious change.” It wasn’t the DSM-IV’s fault that it did not prevent “the rampant diagnostic inflating” or the “national drug overdose of medication” that followed its publication. The framers of the DSM-IV were, at worst, “naïve” in failing to worry that 56% of their experts had financial ties to drug companies.

Dr. Frances repeatedly chastises the writers of the DSM-5 for failing to ask Hippocrates’ question: Will this new diagnosis help patients or harm them? But the DSM-IV failed to ask the same question when, for example, it retained Multiple Personality Disorder. After the DSM-III included MPD in 1980, thousands of spurious cases emerged in the next two decades, and special psychiatric clinics arose to treat them. Yet faced with evidence of this disastrous epidemic, the DSM-IV did not delete the diagnosis. Instead, the manual renamed it Dissociative Identity Disorder. “MPD presented a dilemma for me,” Dr. Frances says. “We took scrupulous pains to present both sides of the controversy as fairly and effectively as possible—even though I believed one side was complete bunk.” How do you “fairly” argue for a diagnosis you think is complete bunk? Where’s the methodological rigor? Why did it take malpractice suits to close the psychiatric MPD clinics and not the presumed voice of scientific authority, the DSM? Dissociative Identity Disorder remains in the DSM-5.

Nonetheless, Dr. Frances does his best to save psychiatry. It is impossible to define “normal,” he explains, let alone “mental disorder.” But that doesn’t mean, he adds, that we can’t talk about the problems that cause human suffering. Mental disorders should be diagnosed only when a person’s symptoms are obvious, severe and haven’t gone away on their own. Watchful waiting should be the first step in treatment, and medication a last resort. A wise, and increasingly rare, approach.

Rattner at N.Y. Times: Behind the I.R.S. Mess: A Campaign Scandal

Behind the I.R.S. Mess: A Campaign-Finance Scandal

Opinion by Steven Rattner, New York Times:

Let’s stipulate that the scandal involving the Internal Revenue Service’s targeting of conservative nonprofit groups portrays government as if drawn in caricature — an almost Keystone Kops-style comedy of errors on the part of low-level staffers, with a vein of possible political bias.

Of course, the matter needs to be fully investigated, those responsible need to be held accountable and procedures need to be put in place to ensure that nothing like this can happen again.

But let’s also remember what the I.R.S. brouhaha is not. Unlike the abuse of the I.R.S. by President Richard M. Nixon, in this case there’s no evidence that anyone in the White House had any involvement in — nor even any knowledge of — what was going on within the agency’s Tax Exempt and Government Entities Division.

In the post-Watergate years, legislation was passed to protect the I.R.S. against political meddling from the executive branch. That included — unusually — a five-year term for the I.R.S. commissioner.

Until his departure in November 2012, the I.R.S. commissioner was Douglas Shulman, an appointee of President George W. Bush. (Yesterday, the acting commissioner, Steven Miller, who was a career civil servant, resigned under pressure.)

And finally, note that when Lois Lerner, the head of the Tax Exempt and Government Entities Division, learned that applications were being singled out if they contained words like “Tea Party” in their names, she ordered that the practice be stopped. Regrettably, a bureaucratic ant colony succeeded in circumventing her instruction for several months.

By way of background, the decision in 2010 to target groups with certain words in their names did not come out of nowhere. That same year, the Supreme Court decision in the Citizens United case substantially liberalized rules around political contributions, stimulating the formation of many activist groups.

In the year ended Sept. 30, 2010, the division received 1,741 applications from “social welfare organizations” requesting tax-exempt status. Two years later, the figure was 2,774. Meanwhile, the staff of the division tasked with reviewing these applications was reduced as part of a series of budget reductions imposed on the I.R.S. by anti-tax forces.

A far higher proportion of the new applicants wanted to pursue a conservative agenda than a liberal agenda. So without trying to defend the indefensible profiling, it wouldn’t be that shocking if low-level staff members were simply, but stupidly, trying to find an efficient way to sift through the avalanche of applications.

One of the bigger ironies about the I.R.S. imbroglio is that it had nothing to do with taxes. These newly formed entities didn’t seek 501(c)(4) status to avoid taxes — these groups don’t earn profits and therefore don’t pay any taxes, regardless of their status. The important benefit that came from achieving 501(c)(4) status was freedom from having to disclose the names of any of their donors.

That’s right, what the I.R.S. was really deciding in these cases is which organizations have to disclose their funders and which don’t. And what it was trying to do — however dumbly it went about it — was to reduce the abuse of the campaign-finance rules, not the tax laws.

Without 501(c)(4) status, these groups would have had to organize as what are known colloquially as “super PACs.” While this would have afforded them greater flexibility to overtly support candidates, the names of their donors would have to be made public.

In theory, 501(c)(4)’s are supposed to be social welfare organizations. But the rules are vague and are often stretched.

Some groups have interpreted the regulations as permitting them to spend as much as 49 percent of their funds directly advocating for or attacking the election of candidates, maintaining all the while the secrecy of their donors’ names.

Perhaps most incredibly, a 501(c)(4) can even transfer a portion of its funds to a super PAC, which can — thanks in part to the Citizens United decision — freely support candidates for office.

Karl Rove established just such a structure by pairing a 501(c)(4) organization (Crossroads GPS) with a super PAC (American Crossroads). By some accounts he raised as much as $300 million for these entities. And yet there’s no evidence that the I.R.S. ever questioned the 501(c)(4) status granted to Crossroads GPS.

So let’s, by all means, find the wrongdoers at the I.R.S. and punish them. But the biggest take-away from the I.R.S. mess should be that our campaign-finance system is in desperate need of overhaul.

Comment: Would things work out as Rattner suggests, there seems to be no issue at all with Obamalings using the IRS to disrupt conservative groups requesting tax exemption. Just a coincidence, an arithmatic peculiarity of chance. If the serious continue their investigations into the Obama mind and fingers in this plot, they will find pay dirt. Mr. Obama may be a wreck as a human being, but he does like to paste evil upon his opponents.

Keystone XL looms as Obama wants to cut delays on big projects?

The title to the following article at the Los Angeles Times is misleading, and likely written to mislead by intent in our world led from behind by foreigner Barack Hussein Obama and analyzed in the main stream press by the Obamaling Left.

“Keystone XL looms as Obama wants to cut delays on big projects” is simply a puff of Obama smoke from his childhood shared perhaps by most and the L.A. Times.

How does anyone know Hussein Obama ‘wants’ to cut delays on big projects? Nearly every sentence of speech and reaction exercises some command….in the I want category…..a want with no end if the want deals with anything resembling honesty.

Hopefully, some day an honest reporter will write a biography of this self serving Marxist leader of the “free” world based on his verbal “wants” fitted with results of the ‘wants’.

Truth is never a bother to Marxists.

A more accurate title is: “Keystone XL looms as Obama says he wants to cut delays on big projects.”

By Christi Parsons at the Leftwing paper, The Los Angeles Times

May 17, 2013, 1:47 p.m.
WASHINGTON — President Obama said Friday he wanted to put more Americans back to work by slashing the amount of time it takes to grant federal approval for big job-creating projects.

But Obama’s choice of venue for his remarks of a manufacturing company that makes mining and pumping equipment provided fodder for Republicans. They pointed out that its president had just the day before testified on Capitol Hill in support of the controversial Keystone XL pipeline, which the Obama administration has delayed for years.

Ellicott Dredges President Peter Bowe says the pipeline, designed to transport crude from oil sands deposits in Alberta, Canada, to the refineries on the U.S. Gulf Coast, would pour money into his business.

“For us, it’s all about jobs,” Bowe told members of the House Committee on Small Business on Thursday. The project will generate jobs “every year for decades to come, all related to the production of oil from the Alberta oil sands deposits,” he said.

PHOTOS: President Obama’s rough week

Obama has spent days trying to manage a rare convergence of controversial stories. He has described how his administration handled the deadly attacks on the diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya; responded to the IRS’ targeting of conservative groups; and defended the Department of Justice’s digging into the phone records of journalists.

The plan for Friday had been to begin turning the conversation back to jobs, according to veteran Democratic strategists who advised the White House this week.

“They know that’s what people care about,” said one, who requested anonymity to talk about the private discussions. The White House also believes the economy trumps all other subjects, even the current controversies, for most Americans.

Although there was no sign that Bowe brought up the subject as he showed Obama around the manufacturing shop, the choice of venue put some of the spotlight on the Keystone XL pipeline after Republicans circulated a transcript of Bowe’s testimony.

Obama in his remarks alluded to lengthy delays the government often imposes on major projects, without referring to Keystone specifically.

DOCUMENT: EPA reviews Keystone XL

“One of the problems we’ve had in the past is that sometimes it takes too long to get projects off the ground,” Obama said. “There are all these permits and red tape and planning and this and that, and some of it’s important to do, but we could do it faster.”

Obama said that he recently ordered accelerated permitting for 50 big projects across the country, including work on the Tappan Zee Bridge in New York and the Port of Charleston in South Carolina.

“We’ve been able to, in some cases, cut approval times from seven years down to a year,” Obama said, to loud applause from the crowd at the Baltimore plant. “Today I’m directing agencies across the government to do what it takes to cut timelines for breaking ground on major infrastructure projects in half.”

Back in Washington, Republicans scoffed.

“Catching grief for your Keystone delays? Don’t worry, we have just the answer,” said Don Stewart, spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). “Expedite something. It hasn’t worked before, but maybe the press will buy it this time.”

Democrats Happy over Obama’s Ability to Escape Answering Anything

Should anyone be surprised? The public has collapsed into the tribal state of the more primitive past. Knowledge and its benefits have been trumped by the ‘rise’ of the banal and carnal since the female of the animal has entered politics. Thinking and behaving at the lemur level have been found much more profitable among leftwing business and political operatives.

Obamaling Democrats have championed aggressiveness far beyond truth since before the foreigner entered the White House.

The following article is from the Hill……generally a left swing of information:

Dem lawmakers buoyed by Obama response to trio of controversies

by Mike Lillis

House Democrats left Washington on Friday insisting they’re not worried about political fallout after one of the most difficult weeks the Obama administration has endured.

Democrats know their fate in the 2014 elections hinges to a large degree on Obama’s popularity, and they say the president has responded appropriately to a trio of controversies involving the IRS, the Justice Department and the terrorist attack last year in Benghazi, Libya.

The Democrats are also cheering the aggressive approach Obama used in the latter half of the week, saying the feistiness has quelled criticisms that the president is steering from the back seat of his own administration.

“The president’s done a good job of stabilizing the situation, working to try and get ahead of the curve so that we can focus on jobs and the economy,” Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) said Friday. “When it comes right down to it, those are the issues of the most concern to people.”

Still, Democrats already have an uphill climb to regain the House, needing 17 seats in the midterm elections to win back the Speaker’s gavel – no easy task in a cycle when, historically, the party of second-term incumbent presidents fares poorly at the polls.

And the last week will not help make 2014 an anomaly.

Obama has come under heavy fire after it was revealed that the Internal Revenue Service focused special attention on conservative groups and the Justice Department swept up telephone records from the Associated Press, unbeknownst to the news organization.

Combined with the ongoing probe into the State Department’s handling of the deadly, Sept. 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, the episodes have only fueled charges – long-lodged by conservatives on and off Capitol Hill – that the administration habitually tramples the Constitution at the expense of civil liberties.

“We now have focused the attention of everyone, including all of you, on the lengths to which the administration’s willing to go to quiet the voices of its critics,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) told reporters this week.

Yet while Republicans have pounced on the controversies with charges of ineptitude, arrogance – even criminality – within the administration, the Democrats are treating those criticisms as partisan musings that won’t resonate beyond the Beltway.

Rep. Henry Cuellar (Texas), vice-chairman of the Democrats’ Steering and Policy Committee, said his constituents are simply more concerned about jobs, immigration reform and other issues that hit much closer to home than executive-branch scandals.

“The national media seems to be focused on this, and I can understand. But back in the district, I mean, I got some interviews, and none of them were on this issue,” Cuellar said Friday. “Literally, once you land and the the door opens, it’s a different environment.”

Rep. Charles Rangel (D), a member of the Ways and Means Committee that began investigating the IRS saga Friday, agreed. The 22-term New Yorker said the trio of controversies, far from being a Democratic liability in 2014, will be forgotten within a few months.

“I don’t see this playing out in November ’13,” Rangel said, emphasizing the “13″ as coming a full year before the midterms. “The American people are going to get exhausted with everything being negative – no jobs program, no tax reform, no alternative to the health plan [and] no immigration bill.”

After several days working behind the scenes, Obama emerged Wednesday with a series of aggressive moves that seem to have helped his cause as it relates to the controversies.

First, the White House released more than 100 pages of emails related to drafting of Benghazi talking points by the CIA, the State Department and the White House.

The emails threw into doubt earlier charges from Republicans that the White House was involved in scrubbing the mention of specific terrorist groups from the final version sent to lawmakers.

Later the same day, the president held a press conference in which he announced the firing of the acting commissioner of the IRS.

On Thursday, Obama went a step further, appointing a new IRS chief in Daniel Werfel, a senior official in the Office of Management and Budget, and staging a press conference from the Rose Garden in which he testily refuted the charges that he’s not in charge.

The president’s tone has angered Republicans, but Democrats heading home for the weekend said they’re spirited by his pluck.

“He’s being very engaged now, he’s being very proactive and that’s what you need to do in a crisis like this,” Cuellar said. “You just can’t wait and let everything define you, so I think he’s trying to move ahead and trying to define the issues before he gets defined.”

Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-Texas) echoed that message.

“He’s shown a genuine concern and genuine outrage,” Castro said Friday, “and he’s doing what he needs to do.”

Obama on Friday sought to change the subject altogether. Even as Republicans were grilling the newly-fired head of the IRS on Capitol Hill, the president was at a manufacturing plant in Baltimore urging Congress to return its gaze on the economy.

“Sometimes our leadership isn’t focused where it needs to be focused,” Obama said, referring to the string of controversies without mentioning them. “We’ve been able to clear away the rubble of the crisis … but our work is not done. Our focus cannot drift.”

With Republicans vowing the investigations have only begun, however, that’s likely a message of wishful thinking.

Read more: http://thehill.com/homenews/house/300551-dem-lawmakers-buoyed-by-obama-response-to-worrisome-scandals#ixzz2ThJ1dhGW
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

Obama’s Marxists at the IRS in Action in IRS Scandal

PowerLine recording: Highlights of IRS Hearing

by John Hinderaker:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/05/highlights-of-todays-irs-hearing.php

Former acting IRS Commissioner Steve Miller testified before the House Ways and Means Committee today; Paul live-blogged his appearance. My friend Jeff Davis compiled this video of highlights of today’s proceedings. As usual, the highlights consist more of the Congressmen’s questions than Miller’s answers, but the video is nevertheless revealing. Miller comes across just as Paul described him: