Those old enough to remember Watergate will recall that once major scandals within a presidential administration get rolling, they snowball. The press finds itself reporting new developments daily. That is, assuming the press is reporting anything at all.
It is no surprise that the government agency responsible for taxing the rich and funding the liberal management of our lives for the collective would be a bastion of the most partisan members of the Democratic Party, willing to wield the hammer that is government power for the various factions of the gangster-like mob it has become.
Current tax law, or what passes for “law,” requires tyranny in its enforcement. The Internal Revenue Service has always been uniquely above the law with its unique right to preemptive seizure of a target’s property and a reverse burden of proof that requires accused taxpayers to prove their innocence.
Several columns this morning probe the question of the president’s involvement in the burgeoning IRS scandal. Jonah Goldberg at Townhall delivers a typically compelling argument that the IRS was following Obama’s example (more on which below), but the article opens with a disclaimer: “Yes, it’s extremely unlikely he ordered the IRS to discriminate against tea party, pro-life or Jewish groups opposed to his agenda.”
Now, in light of the current IRS scandal, the thought of the IRS legally wedded to the ACA should give every American serious heartburn.
The IRS didn’t just investigate groups based on their perceived political views, but also targeted groups for “educating on the Constitution and Bill of Rights” or advocating limits on government or deficit spending, reports the Washington Post. Meanwhile, the Obama Justice Department is demanding that colleges adopt sweeping unconstitutional speech codes that ban even speech that would not offend a “reasonable person,” but only hypersensitive people, notes a prominent law professor. The Post describes the additional groups targeted by the IRS:
In his “Morning Jolt” today, Jim Geraghty of National Review Online highlighted a post from yesterday by Peter Wehner at Commentary’s website. In it, Peter muses on how today’s conservatives in America have strayed from the conservatism of Edmund Burke, which had a strong component of concern for community and social partnership. Peter says this: Continue reading
Can websites be forced to change to accommodate the disabled — by using “simpler language” to appeal to the “intellectually disabled,” or by making them accessible to the blind and deaf at considerable expense?
Generally, the First Amendment gives you the right to choose whom to talk to and how, without government interference. There is no obligation to make your message accessible to the whole world, and the government can’t force you to make your speech accessible to everyone, much less appealing to them.
Delivering the commencement address to the graduating class of Ohio State University, Barack Obama gave his opinion on governmental tyranny. Remarkably the views he expressed run counter to the ideals set down in print by the architect of the Declaration on Independence and founding father, Thomas Jefferson.
Whether or not you believe that instituting background checks on prospective gun owners will cut down on gun violence, you’ll probably find a similar requirement on owners of specific dog breeds to be perhaps a bridge too far.
While the fallout from the Boston Marathon bombings is raising new questions — did the government’s intelligence apparatus under Barack Obama fail to track the comings and goings of a terrorist in the making? — it may answer some for Boston police. It may help them close the books on three unsolved murders.