Monthly Archives: April 2015

Sometimes Justice Is A Slow Process

Posted on by

On Monday, The Daily Signal reported that Federal District Court Judge Susan Dlott granted a motion to compel and ordered the IRS to produce the names of the 298 targeted organizations identified by the IRS for the Treasury Inspector General. Last week U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, Ronald Machen disclosed the Justice Department‘s decision not to charge Lois Lerner with of Congress. This latest decision at least allows the probe of wrong doing by the Internal Revenue Service to continue.

The article reports:

…the plaintiffs have been trying through the discovery process to identify all of the conservative organizations unfairly targeted by the IRS so that they can seek class certification. If they can convince Judge Dlott to certify a class, then the lawsuit would expand from the ten original plaintiffs to all of the organizations on Lois Lerner’s hit list. This would greatly expand the risks to, and potential liability of, the government.

But the IRS, in a fitting bit of irony, refused to turn over the names of the organizations whose applications were mishandled, claiming that would violate the confidentiality requirements of Section 6103.

On April 1, in what must have seemed a cruel April Fool’s joke to the Justice Department lawyers handling the case, Judge Dlott denied a protective order sought by Justice Department to prevent the IRS from being forced to turn over this information. She pointed out that Section 6103 has an exemption for tax information “directly related to an issue in” a judicial proceeding. Since the identity of all of the targeted organizations “is directly related to the issue of class certification in this federal court proceeding,” she granted the plaintiffs’ motion to compel.

According to the article, the IRS will be forced to turn over:

  • All charts, lists, spreadsheets or indexes of groups that had their Applications for Tax Exemption selected or flagged by the IRS for heightened review based on an infamous BOLO (Be On the Look Out) edict issued by IRS officials;
  • The document listing the 298 organizations that the IRS sent the Inspector General on June 11, 2012; and
  • The document titled “Advocacy Case Tracking Sheet” that the IRS sent the Inspector General on the same date.

There is little doubt that the Obama Administration was using the IRS to suppress free speech. Hopefully those at the root of this action will be identified and charged with the appropriate crimes.

The Verdict Is In

Posted on by

The Associated Press is reporting that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was convicted on all charges Wednesday in the Boston Marathon bombing by a federal jury. The question now is whether or not he will receive the death penalty.

The article reports:

Tsarnaev folded his arms, fidgeted and looked down at the defense table as he listened to one guilty verdict after another on all 30 counts against him, including conspiracy and deadly use of a weapon of mass destruction. Seventeen of those counts are punishable by death.

The verdict – reached after a day and a half of deliberations – was practically a foregone conclusion, given his lawyer’s startling admission at the trial’s outset that Tsarnaev carried out the terror attack with his now-dead older brother, Tamerlan.

Tsarnaev‘s defense lawyer, Judy Clarke, has argued that Tsarnaev, who was nineteen at the time of the bombing, committed the crime because he was under the influence of his older brother, Tamerlan. That may be so, but it doesn’t excuse what he did. Tsarnaev had (and has) free choice in choosing his actions, and now he is being called to take responsibility for those actions.

Whatever happens to Tsarnaev, the victims of the bombing will never be able to go back to where they were before the event–the loved ones will still be lost and the major injuries will still be there. Executing Tsarnaev will not change anything that has happened, but I am not sure anything will be gained by keeping him alive either.

 

People Co-exist Very Well When Governments Get Out Of The Way

Posted on by

CBN News posted a story today about Ariel University. It is one of the success stories of Israeli-Arab relations, and has been boycotted by European governments and the U.S. State Department. Why?

The article explains:

The university’s home is Ariel, what some call a “West Bank settlement” in territory Palestinians want for a future state. It’s also part of the land promised to the Jewish people in the Bible as an eternal inheritance.

That has led to boycotts of the university by European governments and the U.S. State Department, Friedman said.

Oddly enough, despite the politics, the university represnets a model for co-existence. Some 15,000 Israeli Jewish and Arab students study here together in Hebrew — without a problem.

The article further explains:

Chancellor Yigal Cohen Orgad credits the university’s success to creating an informal atmosphere in which students see each other eye-to-eye.

He thanked God there are no conflicts at the university. 

“We passed in Israel two intifadas, this university,” Orgad said. “There was [not] one evening or one day of tension between Jews and Arabs that study here.”

Despite its cutting-edge research, pastoral setting, and quiet campus life, some in the international community see Ariel University as a controversial place.

“We don’t have problems with other universities and research institutes,” Orgad said. “We have real problems with many governments. First of all in Europe and part of the American government, i.e., the State Department, that tries to boycott us formally or informally.”

Why? “Because they think we don’t have the right as Jews to live here in Samaria,” Orgad told CBN News.

Practically speaking, the boycott makes it difficult to obtain grants and actually hinders things like helping neighboring Arab villages improve their quality of life.

It seems very obvious that the University has managed to make peace between the Israelis and the Arabs who study there. If there is peace there, the governments in Europe and America need to stop complaining.

I Am Sure This Is Logical Somehow

Posted on by

Breitbart.com is reporting today that in Colorado a baker can refuse to bake a cake decorated with a Bible verse for Christians and face no consequences, but will face discrimination charges for refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding. Amazing.

The article reports:

Christian activist Bill Jack has denounced a decision by the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Regulatory Agencies, which found Azucar Bakery in Denver not guilty of discrimination for refusing to bake a cake adorned with Bible quotes condemning sodomy.

Last March, Jack went to Azucar Bakery and requested two cakes to be decorated with biblical messages.

“I requested two cakes, each in the shape of an open Bible. On the first cake I requested on one page, ‘God hates sin — Psalm 45:7,’ and on the facing page, ‘Homosexuality is a detestable sin — Leviticus 18:22,’” Jack said.

Jack also said:

On the second cake I requested on one page, “God loves sinners,” and on the facing page, “While we were yet sinners Christ died for us – Romans 5:8.” I also requested a decoration of two groomsmen holding hands with a cross in the background with a ghostbusters symbol over it to illustrate that such a union is unacceptable biblically.

On Good Friday, the Department of Regulatory Agencies handed down its decision that refusing such a request did not constitute discrimination.

I suppose we could debate that the Bible verse cake was offensive to the baker, but wasn’t the gay wedding cake offensive to the Christian baker? If the man requested to bake the Bible cake has the right to refuse to bake that cake, then the man who is requested to bake a cake for a gay wedding also has the right to refuse. The law either applies to everyone, or it is not a just law.

At some point people need to realize that when one person’s right is taken away, it gives the government permission to take away all of our rights.

Playing Politics With National Security

Posted on by

The topic of discussion right now is the nuclear deal reached with Iran. What is needed is an open, honest discussion about what the deal does and what it doesn’t do. What we are getting is political garbage.

Townhall.com posted an article today which perfectly illustrates what has happened to honest debate in America.

The article reports:

Regardless of bipartisan opposition, the White House is pinning opposition and criticism of the current deal and process on Republicans. The administration is painting Republican concerns as illegitimate while at the same time entertaining the same concerns of “principled” Democrats.

“My view is that there are a number of members of Congress that have considered this in a principled way. And those are members of Congress with whom we can have legitimate conversations about our efforts to try and prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon,” Earnest (Josh Earnest, White House Press Secretary). said Monday afternoon. “There are a substantial number of members of Congress, all of them Republicans as far as I can tell, who have engaged in an effort to just undermine the talks from the very beginning.” 

These are the sort of remarks that make cooperation between the political parties very difficult. Voters who are thoughtfully considering issues will view these statements as one more reason to tune out Washington.

This really is not the way to run a country.

Don’t Listen To What They Say, Watch What They Do

Posted on by

Fox News posted an article today about an interesting wrinkle in the Iranian nuclear negotiations. Before I continue this article, I would like to point out that our only ally in the Middle East that has never betrayed us is Israel. It is a shame that we have not always treated them very well.

The article reports:

A State Department official dismissed a plea Friday from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that the Iran nuclear agreement include clear recognition of his nation’s “right to exist,” declaring negotiations are “only about the nuclear issue.”

State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf, in a terse response to a question about Netanyahu’s concerns, told reporters, “This is an agreement that is only about the nuclear issue” — a comment that indicates the Obama administration is not looking to enshrine Israel’s security into a final agreement. 

Harf, for her part, suggested the talks are complicated enough already.

“This is an agreement that doesn’t deal with any other issues, nor should it,” she said.

Obama administration officials have insisted all along that despite their public disagreement with Netanyahu over the Iran deal framework, the U.S. commitment to Israel’s security is unwavering. Further, White House spokesman Eric Schultz told reporters on Air Force One on Friday that the U.S. would not agree to any deal that would threaten Israel. 

I can’t believe our State Department is that naive. When Iran obtains a nuclear weapon (which it will under the terms of the agreement negotiated), their first target will be Israel, their second target will be America. This agreement is a fool’s attempt at peace.

It seems to me that asking Iran to acknowledge Israel’s right to exist would reveal how serious Iran is about the negotiations. If Iran is not even willing to acknowledge the right of an American ally to exist, why are we negotiating with them at all? Also, why are we negotiating with a country that is currently holding an American citizen in prison (Pastor Saeed Abedini) without demanding his release as a precursor for the negotiations? President Obama lacks the necessary negotiation skills to sit down with Iran–he is playing tiddlywinks while they are playing chess. Does he not realize that it is not only Israel’s right to exist in question, but eventually it will be America’s right to exist?

More Thuggery In The Obama Administration

Posted on by

Anyone who even tries to look into the activities of the Obama Administration can expect some sort of retaliation or intimidation. We have seen that pattern in the six years of this administration. The Justice Department and the Internal Revenue Service, to name two, are among the agencies used by the government to silence dissent, intimidate any opposition, or sidetrack investigations into corruption. Recently there has been a new example.

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air posted an article today about a recent leak from the Secret Service that House Oversight chair Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) had been rejected when he attempted to join the Secret Service. DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson and acting Secret Service chief Joseph Clancy have both apologized for the leak, but that doesn’t change the fact that the leak occurred. I am sure that the fact that Representative Chaffetz is investigating the Secret Service for its recent failures has nothing to do with the leak. Yeah, right.

The article reports:

Senior staffers for a House committee overseeing the Secret Service have asked the Obama administration to investigate complaints that agency employees circulated private personnel information revealing that the panel’s chairman was once rejected for a job as an agent, according to people familiar with the discussions.

The committee staff referred the issue Thursday to the Department of Homeland Security after receiving whistleblower complaints that Secret Service staff at agency headquarters had circulated potentially unflattering information about Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah). He has been an outspoken critic of Secret Service managers after a string of security lapses.

Chicago politics has truly come to Washington.

Even the Democrats are beginning to be embarrassed. The article reports:

“I won’t be intimidated, but I’m sure that’s what it’s intended to do,” [Chaffetz] said.

Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), ranking Democratic member of the committee, called the allegations “disturbing” and agreed with Johnson that they must be thoroughly investigated.

“If that’s true, I find it appalling,” Cummings said. “There is absolutely no room for this kind of activity in the Secret Service… If true, it simply continues to erode the credibility of one of our most important agencies.”

If this sort of behavior continues, we will become a banana republic. Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson has already refused to let Secret Service members testify before the Committee investigating them (makes a lot of sense, doesn’t it?).

Congress needs to develop some backbone and stand up to the bullying and intimidation tactics of the Obama Administration. It sounds as if Representative Chaffetz is willing to do just that.

This Seems To Be A Rather Unagreeable Agreement

Posted on by

Yesterday the Washington Free Beacon posted an article about the nuclear agreement reached with Iran.

The article reports:

Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif accused the Obama administration of misleading the American people and Congress in a fact sheet it released following the culmination of negotiations with the Islamic Republic.

Zarif bragged in an earlier press conference with reporters that the United States had tentatively agreed to let it continue the enrichment of uranium, the key component in a nuclear bomb, as well as key nuclear research.

Zarif additionally said Iran would have all nuclear-related sanctions lifted once a final deal is signed and that the country would not be forced to shut down any of its currently operating nuclear installations.

Following a subsequent press conference by Secretary of State John Kerry—and release of a administration fact sheet on Iranian concessions—Zarif lashed out on Twitter over what he dubbed lies.

Zarif has told reporters that the agreement allows Iran to continue its nuclear program.

It seems the only concession made in the negotiations was that the sanctions on Iran would be lifted. I don’t see any evidence that Iran gave up anything.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

When The Timeline Tells A Different Story

Posted on by

On Tuesday, Investors.com posted an article about the timeline involved in the prisoner swap that freed Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl from the Taliban.

The article reports:

“This was about bringing home an individual that had served his country,” State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said last week about the 2014 swap.

But IBD has uncovered a series of credible reports from 2012 — as well as a transcript of a candid press conference by then-Afghan President Hamid Karzai — that show the White House originally wanted to give up the Taliban commanders under just one condition: that the Taliban open a political office in Qatar “to conduct peace negotiations.” It was Qatar that ended up taking the prisoners.

It seems that successful negotiations are not a strong point of the current White House.

This is the timeline as listed in the article:

January 2009: Obama signs executive order calling for Gitmo to be shuttered within a year, while his national security team considers if the five Taliban leaders are safe for release.

2011: White House and State Department officials open secret talks with the Taliban in Germany and the Persian Gulf to discuss their release from Gitmo as part of “peace talks.”

Jan. 3, 2012: The Taliban announce they are prepared to open a political office in Qatar to conduct peace negotiations in exchange for the release of the Taliban commanders. (“The releases would be to reciprocate for Tuesday’s announcement,” according to “The Guardian.”)

April 2012: Working with the White House, Karzai sends delegation of Afghan government officials to Gitmo to interview the Taliban prisoners and secure their oath to cut ties with al-Qaida.

(“On the issue of the release of the Taliban prisoners from Guantanamo, we are fully in support of that,” Karzai says during a July 9, 2012, visit to Japan. “If they wish to go to Qatar, we want them rejoined with their families.”)

Karzai signed on to the deal because he thought it would buy peace and goodwill with the Taliban, which threatened to retake Afghanistan.

You would think by now we would have learned that any peace and goodwill from the Taliban is highly unlikely. Now that the five prisoners formerly classified as “indefinite detainees” have been released, the defense lawyers for the remaining prisoners can easily argue that their clients are less dangerous.

The goal was always to close the prison at Guantanamo–not to return Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl to America.

 

 

 

How To Twist A Story To Fit Your Agenda

Posted on by

The mainstream media is trashing Indiana‘s new law that protects the religious rights of Christians. We can’t have those rights protected, we have to have other rights protected. One of the stories that has repeatedly shown up on Facebook is the story of a pizza place that won’t serve gays. It seems a little odd that a pizza place would even know if a customer was gay, but the story is definitely making the rounds. Well, as usual, the truth is not necessarily what has been posted.

Yesterday The Daily Caller posted an article about the pizza place in question. I hope they sue the reporter who wrote the story for serious money–they were slandered.

The article reports:

There were no complaints nor denials of service to anyone ever, but because of their religious beliefs, Memories Pizza stands in ruin and the family who owns it has had their lives threatened countless times. How did the O’Connor family, owners of Memories, find themselves in this situation? They were honest with a reporter in search of a story to fit the media’s narrative.

Alyssa Marino is a reporter with ABC 57 News in South Bend, Indiana. With her state in the center of a hurricane over religious freedom, Marino must’ve thought she’d had a coup – a devout Christian business owner willing to speak on camera about their religious beliefs and how it impacts the operations of that business.

…When owner Crystal O’Connor told Marino, “If a gay couple came in and wanted us to provide pizzas for their wedding, we would have to say no,” she had to know she’d struck gold.

Marino had her headline, “RFRA: Michiana business wouldn’t cater a gay wedding.” O’Connor’s quote was in paragraph three. The chyron on the screen for the report read, “Restaurant denies some services to same-sex couples.”

And that is how you twist a story to smear someone who holds a belief different than the one you are promoting.

Talks? No Talks? Agreement? No Agreement?

Posted on by

There are conflicting stories about what is currently happening in Switzerland with the Iranian nuclear talks. Yesterday Hot Air reported that the French and German Foreign Ministers are leaving the talks this morning. The United States has vowed to extend the talks into today. Meanwhile, Yahoo News reported this morning that the talks have been extended and that key elements have been agreed on.

Yahoo News reports:

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said negotiators had reached a general accord on “all key aspects”, according to Russia’s TASS news agency, while his Iranian counterpart said a draft agreement could be prepared on Wednesday.

But a diplomat close to the talks denied that such an agreement had been reached, and a French official said Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius was leaving the talks and would return from France when it was “useful”. It was not clear whether his departure was a sign of a major problem in the talks.

The six powers – the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China – aim to stop Iran from gaining the capacity to develop a nuclear bomb in exchange for easing international sanctions that are crippling its economy.

Iran says its nuclear programme is peaceful.

China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi said there was “significant progress in core issues” and the positions of all parties “have become closer”. A Western diplomat in Lausanne said Wang had flown back to Beijing, leaving his deputy at the negotiations.

So we have the talks continuing without the French Foreign Minister and with a Deputy Foreign Minister from China.

We need to remember that the Mullahs who actually control Iran are still “Death to America.” I am really not convinced that is an indication of their desire to either negotiate or make peace. All Iran needs to develop and produce an atomic bomb is time. The delays in the nuclear talks are giving them that tme.

 

Equal Rights Means Equal Rights

Posted on by

Breitbart.com posted an article yesterday about a religious liberty bill passed by Arkansas this week.

The article reports:

Meanwhile, while everyone was focused on Indiana, Arkansas honored both the founding of our country and the First Amendment by giving legal standing to the conscience of the Religious. In the coming years, as the Left and media ramp up their attacks on Christians, it is going to be important for us to have a place to go if necessary.

The government forcing the Faithful into participating in the sacramentalization of sin (like a same sex marriage) is intolerable to people of many faiths. Now faithful Muslims, Jews, Christians and others have 21 states where they can escape persecution from those trying to tell us that the government forcing you to violate your religious conscience is equality and freedom.

As previously stated, “Everyone has equal rights, or no one does.”

The campaign in the mainstream media against the Indiana law giving equal rights to Christians was unsuccessful because the new media exposed the lies. Not all of America actually heard the truth, but enough people did to blunt the anti-Christian lies of the mainstream media.