The Spectacle Blog

Issa Recovers

Ross Kaminsky — Wed, 22 May 2013 21:33:00 -0400

Earlier today, when House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA) allowed IRS scoundrel Lois Lerner to stop testifying after she “took the Fifth,” I said that Issa had made a mistake.

He should have made her stay and answer, even if her answers were continuing to take the Fifth, if only for the political spectacle.

My assertion stood as my opinion even separate from the statement by Congressman Trey Gowdy (R-SC) that by making an opening statement, essentially asserting that she had done nothing wrong, Lerner had waived her Fifth Amendment rights.

No doubt Rep. Issa heard a barrage of similar comments from the political right (and I’d like to hope that his staff saw the Twitter posting related to my opinion.)

Liberal attorney Alan Dershowitz has now opined of Lerner that “She’s in trouble. She can be held in contempt.”

So it is gratifying for multiple reasons that, according to reports, Issa will recall Lerner to testify. She will be told, presumably, that she cannot take the Fifth. My guess is that she will do so anyway, leading to a lawsuit between her lawyers and the Committee’s lawyers. It should be a beautiful thing to watch, making Jay Carney squirm every step of the way.

While Dershowitz seems to agree with Gowdy, other attorneys disagree. Should make for an interesting time in early June.

It would be OK with me if the Committee offers immunity to Lerner if she agrees to testify where the orders to target conservative groups came from, as long as the deal also comes with her losing her job.

Congratulations to Congressman Issa for reconsidering. It takes a big man to admit he was wrong in so public a forum, and then to do the right thing.

The Religion of Peace Strikes London Again

Aaron Goldstein — Wed, 22 May 2013 21:12:00 -0400

I first found out about today’s terrorist attack in London via Ross’ post.

My first thought is that this isn’t the first act of Islamic terrorism in Britain and it won’t be the last.

It has been widely reported that the man who was murdered in broad daylight was a British soldier. Sadly, American soldiers are not unfamiliar with these types of attacks. There was the murder of Private William Long outside a military recruitment center in Arkansas by a Muslim convert in June 2009. Abdulhakim Muhammad (formerly known as Carlos Bledsoe) shouted “Allahu Akbar” as he was led into the courthouse. In March 2011, two U.S. Airmen were shot dead at the Frankfurt Airport by a German born Muslim of Kosovar origin. The gunman shouted, “Allahu Akbar” as he fired.

And lest we forget Fort Hood where Nidal Malik Hassan shouted “Allahu Akbar” as he gunned down 12 military personnel and one civilian.

British Prime Minister David Cameron has said there are “strong indications that this is a terrorist incident.” If this attack had occurred in the United States, President Obama not only would not have described it as a terrorist attack; he would have characterized it as streetplace violence.

Finally, a comment on Ross’ post itself. He concluded the post by writing, “Time to start deporting Muslims from England.”

Unfortunately, it isn’t as simple as all that. At this point, the two men who perpretrated this attack have yet to be identified. When they are don’t be surprised if they were U.K. born and raised. Let us not forget that three of the four men responsible for the London Underground Bombings on July 7, 2005 were born in Britain.

This isn’t to say that unchecked immigration isn’t part of the problem especially with clerics like Abu Qatada spreading jihad to eager audiences in the U.K. The problem is that the U.K. has been trying to deport Qatada without success for seven years. Qatada may soon be deported to Jordan where he faces terrorism charges but that was supposed to happen six years ago. So Lord only knows if that will ever happen.

But even if Qatada is deported, their ideas and influence remain amongst British Muslims regardless of where they were born and regardless if they were born Muslim. The surest way to counter these ideas would be the re-assertion of British values of liberty. The problem is there may not be anyone in Britain willing to re-assert those values.

Not Just the Media: First Amendment Under Attack

Quin Hillyer — Wed, 22 May 2013 17:10:00 -0400

For the University of Mobile’s Center for Leadership, I put the current media-chilling narrative in broader perspective.

But now it’s not just freedom of the press that seems threatened by a government that some people fear is becoming too powerful. As I’ve written here before, freedom of religion also has come increasingly under attack. Fortunately, the federal courts so far seem to be keeping government in its place more often than not - and the Supreme Court in a strong, unanimous decision ruled that churches and faith-based institutions do indeed enjoy First Amendment protections against government interference in their choices of “ministers” (and other employees who perform faith-related functions).

Alas, (moving back to free speech), one Supreme Court Justice actually has written that speech rights are to be “doled out” by government, presumably at the government’s discretion. And a recent Alabama columnist even opined, in admiration but obvious confusion, that “governments g[i]ve … rights and demanded obligations.” This is precisely backwards: The American creed always has been that we already own our rights, and we demand obligations from government to help secure those pre-existing rights from outside attack.

And I didn’t even discuss how the IRS abuses are, in effect, an attack on the freedom of groups to petition their government for redress of grievances…..

House Judiciary: Constitutional Rights Vital in Wartime

Luca Gattoni-Celli — Wed, 22 May 2013 17:07:00 -0400

Members of both parties expressed a strong interest in protecting constitutional rights while prosecuting the war on terror at a House Judiciary Committee hearing Wednesday.

The sparsely attended event touched on fundamental issues of liberty and security. Chairman Robert Goodlatte (R-Va.) began by singling out the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act, which, along with the original Authorization for Use of Military Force after 9/11, could be interpreted as permitting the indefinite detention of American citizens without trial if they were party to terrorist activity.

“The mere notion that this authority exists is troubling in and of itself,” Goodlatte said, unsatisfied by the Obama administration’s assurance that it would never actually indefinitely detain citizens, “and I believe that this body should make clear that citizens of this nation cannot be detained without receiving all of their due process rights in an Article III court.”

Ranking member John Conyers (D-Mich.) concurred, saying Madison’s warning that war is the greatest threat to liberty has been ignored. The hearing was convened on the matter of U.S. citizens’ constitutional rights, but Conyers proposed to consider non-citizens’ rights as well, and noted that the Constitution protects individuals detained anywhere in the world by the United States. This sentiment was earnestly affirmed by Chairman Goodlatte and undergirded the larger discussion.

Conyers and many other members zeroed in on the Boston Marathon Bombing in discussing the balance between the constitutional right to due process and the public safety interest in extracting information from suspects. Unless they are independently corroborated, a suspect’s statments are only admissible in court if he or she has been Mirandized, informed of the right to remain silent, etc. However, other considerations, such as presentment, also complicate the question of due process vis-a-vis lawful interrogation.

Brookings Institute Senior Fellow Benjamin Wittes encapsulated the fundamental issue: “I think there are things Congress can do to add flexibility on that issue [of presentment], but at the end of the day we are dealing with people’s constitutional rights and sometimes they will assert them,” he said, later adding, “That has consequences and sometimes those consequences are intelligence loss.”

Overall the mood among the assembled witnesses was optimistic. By consensus, robust frameworks have been established since 9/11 to allow the traditional justice system to handle cases with bearing on national security. The key issue moving forward is ensuring that this framework, not a completely novel military detainee paradigm, can function effectively.

U.S. Admits 4 Americans Killed by Drones

Luca Gattoni-Celli — Wed, 22 May 2013 16:35:00 -0400

A key development today in the evolving story of America’s overseas targeted killing program. The White House has officially acknowledged the killing of four of its own citizens with unmanned aerial systems, popularly known as drones. The New York Times reports:

In a letter to Congressional leaders obtained by The New York Times, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. disclosed that the administration had deliberately killed Anwar al-Awlaki, a radical Muslim cleric who was killed in a drone strike in September 2011 in Yemen.

Tomorrow President Obama will give a speech about targeted killings, as well as the military detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. These gestures signal a new openness about the drone program; the executive branch only recently began acknowledging its existence.

Colorado Governor Gives “Reprieve” to Murderer

Ross Kaminsky — Wed, 22 May 2013 16:24:00 -0400

With the hornets nest of conservative and libertarian anger which Colorado Governor John “I’m a moderate” Hickenlooper stirred up by supporting a raft of anti-gun legislation in this once-red state, I thought there was little chance he would pardon or commute the sentence of Nathan Dunlap. Particularly since Hickenlooper made sure that a bill ending the death penalty in Colorado did not get a vote in the state legislature.

Today, with a “temporary reprieve,” the governor may have just done the politically unthinkable: He has made it possible for a Republican to beat him in 2014.

Nathan Dunlap shot five people, killing four of them, in a Chuck E. Cheese restaurant in Aurora, Colorado in 1993. He later said that killing the people was “better than sex.”

Hickenlooper says that the time since the conviction has given “the benefit of information that exposes an inequitable system.” Whether or not the system is inequitable is not relevant. There is no question as to Dunlap’s guilt. Zero, nada, zilch. He did it, and he was proud of it.

He deserves to die.

George Brauchler, the recently elected District Attorney of the judicial district where Dunlap was convicted, and where the mass-murderer James Holmes is soon to face trial, has argued that “justice demands the death of Nathan Dunlap.” I couldn’t agree more.

The parents of Dunlap’s victims are rightfully furious.

Furthermore, if Dunlap doesn’t deserve death, then what is the purpose of having a death penalty in Colorado?

How about also pardoning the other people on death row here, including one who murdered the son of Colorado State Representative Rhonda Fields?

As usual, Hickenlooper wants to have it both ways: By doing this by executive order, and as reprieve, it means a future governor could undo today’s move and send Nathan Dunlap to his just reward unless Hickenlooper does something more permanent before leaving office.

My prediction: This will make many Coloradoans, not just Republicans, extremely angry. And it will cause several Republican gubernatorial hopefuls who had been on the sidelines because Hickenlooper had seemed extremely difficult to beat now put their hats in the ring. The number one campaign slogan for the eventual Republican nominee: “I promise that Nathan Dunlap will get what he deserves.”

One thing which occurred to me when the anti-gun legislation was being shoved down the throats of unwilling Coloradoans was this: Hickenlooper is aiming to get a high-paying job working for Michael Bloomberg.

Today’s events make me think I may not have been unduly conspiracy-minded after all.

John Hickenlooper just stabbed his state, and the justice system, in the back. Now it’s time to hope that voters do the same to his political career in 18 months, and return this state to some sense of sanity.

Steven Crowder: Jesus vs. Muhammad

Ross Kaminsky — Wed, 22 May 2013 15:58:00 -0400

There’s a fine line between brave and stupid, and I’m always grateful when the hilarious Steven Crowder gets close to crossing it. (Whether he’s actually crossed it or not is probably up to the viewer, though I imagine certain folks — no description needed — will take this much worse than others.)

But particularly in light of Wednesday’s horrific murder of a British soldier by immigrant Muslims in London, Crowder’s latest video comparing Jesus to Muhammad deserves a viewing (or two or three.)

Opponents of this particular form of satire will not only be working to get the video removed from YouTube, but following a prior “Qur’an Challenge” video (also a great use of a few minutes of your time), Crowder received death threats. The second comment on the YouTube page for the newest video says “i hope you die choking on ur own blood.” (sic)

This is the world we live in today, where our enemies are emboldened by an American president who refuses to name, or even identify, an evil which is intent on destroying modern civilization.

At least, with that sober thought in the background, Steven Crowder can always make us laugh.

Kaminsky’s Corollary to I, Pencil

Ross Kaminsky — Wed, 22 May 2013 15:22:00 -0400

One of the fundamental and most memorable lessons in economics, regarding specialization and cooperation, is captured in Leonard Read’s 1958 essay, I, Pencil.

Milton Friedman also popularized the idea and the Competitve Enterprise Institute made a short film of the same name.

Today, my contribution to economic theory, the Kaminsky Corollary to I,Pencil:

No individual person can make a pencil, but a single puppy can destroy them with remarkable efficiency.

(Does this imply that a puppy is more powerful than all of mankind?)

State Department: Iran Has Soldiers in Syria

Kaylin Bugos — Wed, 22 May 2013 15:12:00 -0400

Iranian soldiers are fighting alongside troops supporting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and Hezbollah troops, according to a State Department official.

The Washington Post is reporting:

An unknown number of Iranians are fighting inside Syria, the official said, citing accounts from opposition forces supported by Western and Arab governments. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity to preview a strategy session that Secretary of State John F. Kerry will hold Wednesday with key opposition supporters.

Syrian rebels have claimed for weeks that Iran is sending trained fighters to the Syrian civil war, and Iran-backed Hezbollah has said baldly that it will not let Assad fall.

Obama has already let the Assad regime cross his red line on using chemical weapons, so it’s hard to imagine he’ll care about this.

Someone who might care? Benjamin Netanyahu, the prime minister of Israel. Israel, which shares a border with Syria, has already taken military action there. Earlier this month, the Israelis bombed a Syrian research facility and a missile shipment to Iranian-backed Hezbollah. This week, Israeli troops near the Syrian border faced a direct hit from Syria, one of a number of encounters that have occurred in recent months.

Israel already has well-founded concerns about Iran, so knowledge that Iran has soldiers in a country that Israel borders and with which it has had recent violent conflict is another step in the wrong direction. Israel has shown that it isn’t afraid to take action when it needs to, so this is definitely a situation to watch carefully.

Former IRS Commissioner Refused to Say That Targeting Conservative Groups is Wrong

Benjamin Brophy — Wed, 22 May 2013 14:27:00 -0400

Unbelievable.

Muslims Murder British Soldier in London

Ross Kaminsky — Wed, 22 May 2013 14:00:00 -0400

UPDATE: This video purports to be one of the perpetrators:

This horrendous story still developing.

BBC story here

CNN story here

I can only imagine Theo Van Gogh (no longer with us), Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and Geert Wilders saying “Well, what did you expect if you allow massive Muslim immigration and make no real effort to encourage or force assimilation?”

If you want one obvious data point, how about Mohammed being the most common name for boys born in England and Wales?

Time to start deporting Muslims from England.

Anthony Weiner’s Campaign Video

Patrick Ryan — Wed, 22 May 2013 13:33:00 -0400

Congressional Democrat Outraged Over IRS Scandal

Kaylin Bugos — Wed, 22 May 2013 12:57:00 -0400

It took them a while, but it seems like at least some Democrats are realizing just how bad the IRS scandal is.

Yesterday, it seemed like the Democrats on the Senate Finance Committee wanted to complain more about 501(c)(4) groups than the actual, provable targeting of conservatives.

Today, though, at least some of them got it right. Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.) took the lead on grilling Douglas Shulman, the comissioner of the IRS when the targeting occurred. “Sir, you misled Congress — make no question about it,” he said.

See his full questioning here:

Ranking Democrat on the Committee, Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), also posed important questions to Shulman, asking him why he never told Congress what he knew about the targeting. “That simply isn’t good enough,” he said. “Help us help the taxpayers.”

To be fair, not all Democrats got it right. Rep. Matthew Cartwright (D-Penn.) completely defended the IRS employees responsible for the targeting, saying their actions were only a way to streamline their work after the amount of 501(c)(4) applications doubled in 2010 after the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision.

“Whether or not we know what the cause was, we know that the applications doubled in 2010,” Cartwright said.

The only problem there is that Cartwright is 100% wrong. Applications for 501(c)(4) groups increased, but not until long after the targeting began.

As committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) pointed out, any connection with Citizens United falls on the IRS, not the number of applications. The targeting began two months after Citizens United, but long before the applications increased.

I’ll give some of the Democrats credit for their outrage, but Cartwright should check his facts before he speaks next time.

Immigration Bill Clears Key Committee

Jordan Gonzalez — Wed, 22 May 2013 11:56:00 -0400

The Senate’s immigration bill cleared the Judiciary Committee on Tuesday by a vote of 13-5, reports Reuters. Amidst the fireworks of the recent scandal-mania on Capitol Hill, the bill has been quietly edging its way towards the Senate floor for several weeks. Now that it’s cleared the Judiciary Committee, it’s primed for debate on the Senate floor.

Three Republican senators – Orrin Hatch (Utah), Jeff Flake (Arizona), and Lindsey Graham (South Carolina) – voted for the bill, perhaps only because Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont pulled the controversial amendment that would have granted immigration rights to same-sex partners. Leahy said he dropped the amendment “with a heavy heart,” while Graham laid out a clear ultimatum, as reported by the Washington Times:

“You’ve got me on immigration; you don’t have me on marriage,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican and one of the eight senators who wrote the bill and who said he would have had to back out if Mr. Leahy’s proposal had passed. “If you want to keep me on immigration, let’s stay on immigration.”

Unfortunately, this cleared hurdle is a practice run. As much as I applaud good ol’ fashioned compromise, this sweet-smelling flower of bi-partisanship will wither next week when the bill is debated on the Senate floor. The topic of immigration is already heated enough, and only recently has some of the GOP been willing to change their views on immigration. The fate of at least 11 million people living in America, national security concerns (especially after the Boston bombing), and the still-unanswered question about how to control the flow of future immigrants hang in the balance.

Realistically, same-sex marriage/unions are probably inevitable, regardless of what “bigots” like myself and my fellow conservatives believe. Therefore, perhaps Republicans should have let this slide?

Just kidding, we all know neither side will budge. Let the gridlock begin. Viva los Estados Unidos!

Nixonian

Yogi Love — Wed, 22 May 2013 11:54:00 -0400

Moore, OK by Steve Breen

Patrick Ryan — Wed, 22 May 2013 11:50:00 -0400

He’s Just Not That Into You

Ross Kaminsky — Wed, 22 May 2013 11:34:00 -0400

That’s what the “mainstream” media are, slowly but surely, realizing about the Obama administration.

Reporters have acted as if they hoped that by publicly loving Obama, refusing to report anything that might damage him, Dear Leader might love them back.

But the press is just a tool to tyrants, and he’s using them just as any dictator would try to use the media.

At the same time, this administration has aggressively sought to attack its perceived media enemies, particularly Fox News and Rush Limbaugh.

Combining the outrageous persecution of Fox News’ James Rosen with the chilling sweep of AP phone records, even media liberals are now waking up to the true nature of this regime.

One of the most sycophantic supporters of the administration has been the Washington Post’s Dana Milbank, which makes his excoriation of Team Obama all the more welcome and important.

From Milbank: “The Rosen affair is as flagrant an assault on civil liberties as anything done by George W. Bush’s administration, and it uses technology to silence critics in a way Richard Nixon could only have dreamed of.”

A new article by Kirsten Powers, one of the most honest liberal reporters I’m aware of, addresses the same point.

Powers’ conclusion: “What all of us in the media need to remember—whatever our politics—is that we need to hold government actions to the same standard, whether they’re aimed at friends or foes. If not, there’s no one but ourselves to blame when the administration takes aim at us.”

And James Goodale, writing for the NY Times, says that “President Obama will surely pass President Richard Nixon as the worst president ever on issues of national security and press freedom.”

Curl is Right: Don’t Dismiss Benghazi

Quin Hillyer — Wed, 22 May 2013 11:29:00 -0400

The great Joe Curl beat me to it. After my column yesterday on Benghazi laid out the fuller, more focused case on that scandal, I had planned to do a blog post suggesting that the other two “scandals du jour,” important as the are, were timed as they were so as to deliberately distract attention from Benghazi. I was trying to figure out how to make it not sound too conspiratorial. Well, the WashTimes’ Joe Curl beat me to it, with this splendid column.

Excerpt:

The whole ham-handed game play is comical. Just as shocking testimony emerged on the Benghazi scandal, the administration rolls out two scandals, with the targets just coincidentally — the media and right-wing conservatives. Absurd. But fairly brilliant. The self-absorbed media predictably swooned over its plight — this is the biggest scandal ever. And the right-wingers grew indignant, finally able to say “We told you so.” Well played, Obama administration.

Curl is correct that there is much more to find out about Benghazi — even as reports are that new bombshells are already in the offing.

The most obvious question, though, is this: If there was nothing to hide, why did the administration engage in such maltreatment of Gregory Hicks, the top diplomat in Tripoli during the Benghazi attack?

Issa’s Mistake

Ross Kaminsky — Wed, 22 May 2013 11:11:00 -0400

I like the bulldoggedness of Congressman Darrell Issa (R-CA). He should have been more of his usual self this morning when IRS official Lois “planted question” Lerner was called to testify before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

She made a brief statement about having done nothing wrong, then took the Fifth.

Issa excused her, overruling an objection by Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) who said “You don’t get to tell your side of the story and then not stand for cross examination. She waived her right against self-discrimination, she ought to sit here and answer our questions.”

I don’t know if Gowdy was correct on the law or procedure, though his argument makes sense.

However, regardless of Gowdy’s accuracy, Issa should have kept Lerner there, asked her more questions, and made her repeatedly refuse to answer.

The Republicans almost never get a chance at a story where the media might actually be sympathetic to them or their supporters such as Tea Party groups, and they should make the most of it. Few things could annoy the Obama administration more than having a senior IRS official repeatedly taking the fifth in questions about targeting American citizens for their political views.

Darrell Issa is one of the most aggressive, persistent members of Congress in going after Obama administration malfeasance. He should have stuck with those traits today.

Bernanke: No Need to Reimplement Glass-Steagal

Ross Kaminsky — Wed, 22 May 2013 11:03:00 -0400

When (predictably) asked by socialist Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) about what additional taxes and regulations should be dumped on our nation’s financial system, Fed Chairman Bernanke made a remarkable statement, which flies in the face of current liberal dogma:

“I think Glass-Steagall is not the solution because, as we saw in the crisis, investment banks and commercial banks separately got into trouble.”

Just last week, Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) introduced a bill to bring back Glass-Steagall. I guess The Bernanke just stuck a fork in that one…

Bernanke went on to suggest that a primary way to deal with “too big to fail” is to require higher capital requirements for larger banks.

Lerner Says She Did Nothing Wrong, Then Pleads the Fifth

Kaylin Bugos — Wed, 22 May 2013 10:50:00 -0400

Lois Lerner, the IRS director of tax exempt groups, said she did nothing wrong in her opening statement before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, before pleading the Fifth and refusing to answer any questions.

Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) asked her to reconsider her decision based on the fact that she offered testimony in her opening statement and confirmed her previous answers to other questions to appear on the record of the hearing.

Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) interrupted, saying that the hearing room should be treated like a courtroom, and that Lerner had already waived her rights by testifying before the committee. “She waived her right to Fifth Amendment privilege. She ought to stay here and answer our questions,” he said. He compared her actions to a a witness offering testimony in a courtroom but not being subject to cross-examination, which is prohibited.

The committee eventually determined that Lerner was not subject to courtroom rules. Issa dismissed her, but the dismissal was subject to recall if it was determined she had indeed waived her Fifth Amendment rights.

Anthony Weiner Running for NY Mayor

Kyle Peterson — Wed, 22 May 2013 10:38:00 -0400

At last, the candidate New Yorkers have been waiting for:

Morning Round-Up 5-22

Patrick Ryan — Wed, 22 May 2013 10:01:00 -0400

Morning Headlines

Domestic

Associated Press

New York Times

Politico

Reuters

Wall Street Journal

Washington Post

Washington Times

International

Associated Press

New York Times

Reuters

Wall Street Journal

Washington Post

Top Conservative Stories of the Day:

The American Conservative

Breitbart

The Daily Caller

CNSNews.com

Hot Air

1. Breaking: FBI shoots, kills person of interest in Boston bombing after man attacks agent

National Review

Washington Free Beacon

The Weekly Standard

Top Liberal Stories of the Day:

The Daily Beast

Huffington Post

Talking Points Memo

ThinkProgress

Senate Committee Advances Immigration Reform in Bipartisan Vote

Carney Goes Birther on Major Garrett

Aaron Goldstein — Wed, 22 May 2013 00:10:00 -0400

On Tuesday, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney went “birther” on Major Garrett of CBS News.

Garrett was asking Carney to elaborate on Obama Senior Advisor Dan Pfeiffer’s comments over the weekend about Republicans going on “partisan fishing expeditions, trumped up hearings and false allegations.” After going back and forth for a couple of minutes, Garrett brought up HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius soliciting donations from health care companies to implement Obamacare. To which Carney replied, “We could go down the list of questions. We could say what about the president’s birth certificate, was that legitimate?”

Carney’s retort is absolutely specious. Garrett was merely asking a question about Sebelius’ conduct in her official capacity as a cabinet member in the Obama Administration and is well within in his right to do so.

Of course, Carney knows this but he cannot defend Sebelius. So when in doubt bring up something which is entirely irrelevant to the matter at the hand. Usually, race is brought into the discussion. This time it is birtherism. Perhaps next time Carney will ask, “Is the president a Muslim, was that legitimate?”

It’s enough to make me long for Robert Gibbs. Well, almost.

UPDATED: More on Lerner Pleading the Fifth

Kaylin Bugos — Tue, 21 May 2013 16:27:00 -0400

Lois Lerner, the head of the IRS’s tax-exempt-organizations division, will plead the Fifth in a hearing before the House Oversight Committee tomorrow.

Lerner, who has known of the targeting for two years, will not answer questions before the committee according to a letter from her lawyer to committee Chairman Darrell Issa, reported by the Los Angeles Times.

“She has not committed any crime or made any misrepresentation but under the circumstances she has no choice but to take this course,” said a letter by Taylor to committee Chairman Darrell E. Issa, R-Calif. The letter, sent Monday, was obtained Tuesday by the Los Angeles Times.

Taylor, a criminal defense attorney from the Washington firm of Zuckerman Spaeder, said that the Department of Justice has launched a criminal investigation, and that the House committee has asked Lerner to explain why she provided “false or misleading information” to the committee four times last year.

Since Lerner won’t answer questions, Taylor asked that she be excused from appearing, saying that would “have no purpose other than to embarrass or burden her.” There was no immediate word whether the committee will grant her request.

It’s hard to see how this helps Lerner’s case at this point. She’s already become the central figure in this scandal, and for good reason. She tried to claim the targeting came after a huge influx of cases following the 2010 Citizens United decision, but it’s been proven that the influx didn’t happen until long after the targeting process began. She claimed she looked into the targeting after hearing about it in the press, but its been proven that she knew about it at least six months, if not more, before the first press rumblings started.

Essentially, Lerner knows she’s in trouble so she decided to plead the Fifth and avoid answering any questions rather than having to lie or contradict herself under oath.

UPDATE: Lerner is still under subpoena, according to Oversight Committee communications director Ali Ahmad, the Washington Post is reporting:

Ahmad said Lerner, the head of the IRS’s tax-exempt organizations division, would still be required to appear before the committee, which means she will have to plead the Fifth in person and on camera.

“Ms. Lerner remains under subpoena from Chairman Issa to appear at tomorrow’s hearing — the committee has a Constitutional obligation to conduct oversight,” Ahmad said. “Chairman Issa remains hopeful that she will ultimately decide to testify tomorrow about her knowledge of outrageous IRS targeting of Americans for their political beliefs.”

Did Virginia Republicans Just Elect Terry McAuliffe?

Ross Kaminsky — Tue, 21 May 2013 15:41:00 -0400

I recently asked a wise friend of mine who lives in Virginia what his take is on the upcoming election for governor between the state’s attorney general, Ken Cuccinelli, and former DNC chairman, Clinton confidante and fund-raiser Terry McAuliffe.

My friend said “At this stage, it’s hard to figure. Cuccinelli is really weak…McAuliffe, on the other hand, has more baggage than a wagon train. I’d say it’s McAuliffe’s to win. He’s a colorful character, if a bit shady. Cuccinelli has a tough race ahead of him…Cuccinelli will have an awful time trying to get anyone beyond the base to vote, far less vote for him… As to Cuccinelli, I still think he and McAuliffe deserve each other and none of us deserves either of them.”

Not living in Virginia, and thus having only limited contact with that state’s politics since George Allen’s disastrous “macaca” moment, I’ve been favorably inclined toward Cuccinelli as one of the leading champions of the legal fights against Obamacare, despite the results due to the treachery of Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts.

Virginia is a very important state, a bellweather of purple states, and potentially critical in a presidential election. Whether the governor is a Democrat or a Republican matters.

I had been hoping that my friend was too pessimistic, though he’s right far more often than wrong, but this weekend’s turn of events at that state’s nominating convention now has me thinking that Virginia will soon have the unbelievable spector of Governor Terry McAuliffe, a nouveau-riche carpet-bagger in perfect Clinton style.

Due, I’m told by a (different) friend who was a the convention, to a rousing speech, brimming with deeply felt conservative principle, the party nominated E. W. Jackson to be Cuccinelli’s running mate, i.e. to run for the office of lieutenant governor.

Unfortunately, Jackson, who is a pastor, along with having a remarkable personal history of serving in the Marine Corps and then earning a law degree at Harvard Law School (items which the media will certainly ignore), has a history of, shall we say, extremely un-PC remarks about homosexuality.

The National Journal suggests that Virginia Republicans are “panicking” over Jackson’s nomination.

In a country that is moving rapidly toward acceptance of gays, connecting homosexuality to pedophilia is political suicide.

There is a lot to recommend Mr. Jackson, from his service to his obvious intelligence to his passion for the things he believes in. And of course, Republicans are always looking to put forward black conservative candidates. But politics is, as much as anything else, about winning.

With the choice of Jackson, Virginia Republicans showed either ignorance of his history (much like the disaster that befell Colorado when Tea Party groups championed the unaccomplished-at-best Dan Maes simply because he wasn’t “establishment”) or of recent political history, where outrageous (both in substance and in political idiocy) statements by Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock not only cost those men their elections but likely cost Republicans control of the Senate.

It appears that even among the most politically active and theoretically well-informed, one can prove the maxim that people get the government they deserve.

Unless Mr. Jackson steps aside, it strikes me as likely that Virginia will face the depressing prospect of Governor Terry McAuliffe. For the good of his state and of the country, I hope Mr. Jackson will consider removing himself from the ticket while there’s still time to find a credible replacement.

Lois Lerner Will Take the Fifth

Ross Kaminsky — Tue, 21 May 2013 15:27:00 -0400

Let me put on my big surprise face:

Link

The House committee should not excuse her from showing up. They should make her take the fifth, and get it all over the Internet.

Cook Insists: No Income Shifting, Tax Avoidance

Luca Gattoni-Celli — Tue, 21 May 2013 15:01:00 -0400

“There’s no shifting going on, that I see at all,” Apple CEO Tim Cook explained to a Senate investigations subcommittee chaired by Carl Levin (D-Mich.), referring to his company’s Irish subsidiary AOI, which has been painted as a tax shelter. It has 4,000 employees, but it also helped Apple avoid roughly $20 billion in U.S. corporate income taxes last year. “I would say that the 30.5% effective tax rate is the relevant comparison,” Cook explained, alluding to domestic income.

Cook was diplomatic but firm, steering the conversation toward tax reform. Ranking member John McCain (R-Ariz.) asked if he felt bullied or harassed by the committee or its members, taking a dig at Senator Rand Paul’s (R-Ky.) scathing rhetoric. The technology leader replied he was happy to participate in the process and contribute to tax reform, later telling Senator Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), “unlike some of my colleagues I am not proposing zero.”

“I think it’s important to tell our story, and I want them to hear it from me,” he told McCain. “So you were not dragged here?” To mild laughter Cook replied, “I was not dragged here, sir.” He did take a stand on the question of income shifting, however, saying, “from what I see AOI does not reduce our taxes at all,” adding, “Sir, I have tremendous respect for you. I see this differently from you, I believe.”

Levin asked if Cook could understand the perception of an unfair advantage. “To be honest, I do not see this as unfair,” was his reply, “I am not an unfair person and I do not see that as unfair.” Apple Head of Tax Operations Phillip Bullock later asserted that “100% of the profits on any sale to a customer in the United States … all of that is fully taxed in the U.S. There are no outbound payments offshore.” Levin was not satisfied, however, telling Cook: “You shifted your crown jewels, the economic rights to your intellectual property to these three Irish companies, the most valuable things you own.” The Apple representatives disputed that representation, with Senior VP & CFO Peter Oppenheimer saying that AOI “fundamentally has not changed” since 1980 when an agreement was formed to handle these properties.

Democrats Outraged Over IRS, But Not the Right Aspect of It

Kaylin Bugos — Tue, 21 May 2013 14:10:00 -0400

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) expressed his outrage over the IRS process in a hearing on the IRS targeting scandal, but not about the right issue.

The perspective of any rational person would be that the IRS broke the public’s trust by targeting conservative groups and that’s the problem here.

The Democrats on the committee seemed to think otherwise. To them, the idea that conservative groups could have gotten tax exemption in the first place is outrageous, and they’re putting all their focus on reforming the rules on qualifying for 501(c)(4) tax exemption, which allows groups that primarily are used for social welfare purposes to pursue political acitivities and remain tax-exempt.

Baucus’s opening statement began on the issue of the targeting, but quickly moved to the focus on 501(c)(4) groups. “Today, there are countless political organizations at both ends of the spectrum masquerading as ‘social welfare’ groups in order to skirt the tax code,” he said. “These groups seek 501(c)(4) tax-exempt status. Why? Because it allows them to engage in political activity while keeping the identities of their donors secret.”

Several other Democratic senators, including Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) and Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), follow his lead.

“How can you all in the IRS allow these tax breaks essentially funded by taxpayers?” Nelson asked.

Wyden’s thoughts weren’t much different. He favored 527s, which are political groups that have to disclose their donors, over 501(c)(4)s, which do not. “Organizations that ought to be 527s are applying for (c)(4) status. There is an incentive for people to choose their tax status based on if they want to declare their donors,” he said.

“You all don’t seem to have done anything about it and I want to know why not,” he demanded to former IRS chief Douglas Shulman and acting IRS chief Steve Miller. Wyden’s outrage was apparent, but it was directed a the wrong issue.

I don’t want to go into the details on the various types of designations for groups, because it really doesn’t matter. The real questions of this hearing and of this scandal in general is what the IRS did in targeting conservative groups and why it was absolutely wrong.

Once all of this is resolved, politicians can debate 501(c)(4) status all they want. Democrats hate the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United, and this is just another way for them to reinforce that view. Debating that is fine, but let’s at least get to the bottom of this issue and hold the right people responsible first.

What Happens If the Uninsured Can’t Register Under Obamacare?

Patrick Ryan — Tue, 21 May 2013 13:22:00 -0400

Obamacare has not made the health insurance market more transparent, despite its attempt to create “exchanges” in every state. The Affordable Care Act foresaw challenges in registration for millions of uninsured Americans; that’s why it required each state to enlist nonprofits, professional associations, and unions to educate new enrollees as so-called “navigators.”

The states were supposed to pay for these services, of course! Where else would the federal government extract the funds necessary for this behemoth of a law? Alas, 34 states are now relying on federal exchanges.

Which means that the federal government has to hire the “navigators” with money it never allocated. The Departments of Health and Homeland Security scrounged up $54 million for 34 states with 28 million to insure.

Easy, right? Actually, it turns out that insurance companies already employ a large number of people for this very job: brokers! You know, the people educated to inform consumers on separate plans, the ones who handle your confidential medical and legal information.

The Wall Street Journal reported several issues with the administration’s approach. First, there’s the fact that these navigators will be handling Social Security numbers and important tax data. Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) wants HHS to require the same tests for these bureaucratic brokers as those passed by IRS agents (as if we could trust those employees with our secrets).

Not only that, those same states that refused to develop their own exchanges want to mandate “navigators” to obtain separate state licenses to practice.

The House Oversight Committee was supposed to question the Department of Health and Human Services today, but I cannot find it online.

The states have $54 million to acquire these employees and pay for “extensive” training on privacy. That definitely won’t be enough money to compensate these navigators as they undergo state licensing; I suspect some of this money will go to insurance companies in a desperate attempt to sell Obamacare.

Again, we’re witnessing the huge flaws of a bill that relies upon the states’ willingness to dance to the blaring, noxious brass band of the Fed.