It was never intended to provide a living for a family. It is an instructional way to learn, to be on time, to develop people skills etc. If you are on minimum wage after 6 months you should be fired for incompetency.
Raising the wage level is another liberal idea that is harmful to those they profess to care about.
I can think of no better way to help people get unemployed and replaced by machines and/or technology than to keep raising the minimum wage.
It is a Liberal and union ploy to convince idiots they care for them.
Another appeal to emotion which has no standing when put under the light of facts. (See 1 and 1a below.)
===
Now for some non PC humor: http://www.facebook.com/photo.
===
More from Stratfor regarding Syria. (See 2 below.)
===
Has a feckless Obama emboldened Putin? (See 3 below.)
===
My friend Avi discusses India's increased investments in Iran. (See 4 below.)
===
Takes time to catch a liar. The press and media do not care because they have thrown their lot in with Obama and have plenty of wagons left to circle. (See 5 below.)
===
Yesterday I attended a political meeting and had the distinct pleasure of being seated with an old friend, Bernie Marcus. Rep. Tom Price was also at the table.
Bernie was the speaker and reminded the audience that if they do not speak out against what is happening to this nation then they better not look in the mirror because they will have only themselves to blame.
He spoke about Obama's incompetence, he spoke about how the Republicans blew the best chance they had with a Romney candidacy because Romney spoke from an altitude that made himself invisible to the voter below.
Bernie talked about his efforts to get American business to educate their workers to what is happening by giving them facts and avoiding the emotional pitch the Democrats use and use effectively.
It was typical Bernie who, when I introduced him here a year ago, I did so by saying he was the Jewish equivalent of Paul Revere. At 84, Bernie is in good health, remains lean and lanky and is busier now engaged in his various projects from The Atlanta Aquarium to his Foundation, charitable undertakings and politics.
Bernie is an icon, a man who speaks his mind, is untouchable and is having the time of his life which he worked so hard for and deserves.
America would be a better place if we could Xerox Bernie. I have the greatest admiration and affection for this man!
===
Dick
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)Minimum Wage Madness
By Thomas Sowell
Political crusades for raising the minimum wage are back again. Advocates of minimum wage laws often give themselves credit for being more "compassionate" towards "the poor." But they seldom bother to check what are the actual consequences of such laws.
One of the simplest and most fundamental economic principles is that people tend to buy more when the price is lower and less when the price is higher. Yet advocates of minimum wage laws seem to think that the government can raise the price of labor without reducing the amount of labor that will be hired.
When you turn from economic principles to hard facts, the case against minimum wage laws is even stronger. Countries with minimum wage laws almost invariably have higher rates of unemployment than countries without minimum wage laws.
Most nations today have minimum wage laws, but they have not always had them. Unemployment rates have been very much lower in places and times when there were no minimum wage laws.
Switzerland is one of the few modern nations without a minimum wage law. In 2003, "The Economist" magazine reported: "Switzerland's unemployment neared a five-year high of 3.9 percent in February." In February of this year, Switzerland's unemployment rate was 3.1 percent. A recent issue of "The Economist" showed Switzerland's unemployment rate as 2.1 percent.
Most Americans today have never seen unemployment rates that low. However, there was a time when there was no federal minimum wage law in the United States. The last time was during the Coolidge administration, when the annual unemployment rate got as low as 1.8 percent. When Hong Kong was a British colony, it had no minimum wage law. In 1991 its unemployment rate was under 2 percent.
As for being "compassionate" toward "the poor," this assumes that there is some enduring class of Americans who are poor in some meaningful sense, and that there is something compassionate about reducing their chances of getting a job.
Most Americans living below the government-set poverty line have a washer and/or a dryer, as well as a computer. More than 80 percent have air conditioning. More than 80 percent also have both a landline and a cell phone. Nearly all have television and a refrigerator. Most Americans living below the official poverty line also own a motor vehicle and have more living space than the average European -- not Europeans in poverty, the average European.
Why then are they called "poor"? Because government bureaucrats create the official definition of poverty, and they do so in ways that provide a political rationale for the welfare state -- and, not incidentally, for the bureaucrats' own jobs.
Most people in the lower income brackets are not an enduring class. Most working people in the bottom 20 percent in income at a given time do not stay there over time. More of them end up in the top 20 percent than remain behind in the bottom 20 percent.
There is nothing mysterious about the fact that most people start off in entry level jobs that pay much less than they will earn after they get some work experience. But, when minimum wage levels are set without regard to their initial productivity, young people are disproportionately unemployed -- priced out of jobs.
In European welfare states where minimum wages, and mandated job benefits to be paid for by employers, are more generous than in the United States, unemployment rates for younger workers are often 20 percent or higher, even when there is no recession.
Unemployed young people lose not only the pay they could have earned but, at least equally important, the work experience that would enable them to earn higher rates of pay later on.
Minorities, like young people, can also be priced out of jobs. In the United States, the last year in which the black unemployment rate was lower than the white unemployment rate -- 1930 -- was also the last year when there was no federal minimum wage law. Inflation in the 1940s raised the pay of even unskilled workers above the minimum wage set in 1938. Economically, it was the same as if there were no minimum wage law by the late 1940s.
In 1948 the unemployment rate of black 16-year-old and 17-year-old males was 9.4 percent. This was a fraction of what it would become in even the most prosperous years from 1958 on, as the minimum wage was raised repeatedly to keep up with inflation.
Some "compassion" for "the poor"!
1a)Minimum Wage Madness: Part II
By Thomas Sowell
A survey of American economists found that 90 percent of them regarded minimum wage laws as increasing the rate of unemployment among low-skilled workers. Inexperience is often the problem. Only about two percent of Americans over the age of 24 earned the minimum wage.
Advocates of minimum wage laws usually base their support of such laws on their estimate of how much a worker "needs" in order to have "a living wage" -- or on some other criterion that pays little or no attention to the worker's skill level, experience or general productivity. So it is hardly surprising that minimum wage laws set wages that price many a young worker out of a job.
What is surprising is that, despite an accumulation of evidence over the years of the devastating effects of minimum wage laws on black teenage unemployment rates, members of the Congressional Black Caucus continue to vote for such laws.
Once, years ago, during a confidential discussion with a member of the Congressional Black Caucus, I asked how they could possibly vote for minimum wage laws.
The answer I got was that members of the Black Caucus were part of a political coalition and, as such, they were expected to vote for things that other members of that coalition wanted, such as minimum wage laws, in order that other members of the coalition would vote for things that the Black Caucus wanted.
When I asked what could the black members of Congress possibly get in return for supporting minimum wage laws that would be worth sacrificing whole generations of young blacks to huge rates of unemployment, the discussion quickly ended. I may have been vehement when I asked that question.
The same question could be asked of black public officials in general, including Barack Obama, who have taken the side of the teachers' unions, who oppose vouchers or charter schools that allow black parents (among others) to take their children out of failing public schools.
Minimum wage laws can even affect the level of racial discrimination. In an earlier era, when racial discrimination was both legally and socially accepted, minimum wage laws were often used openly to price minorities out of the job market.
In 1925, a minimum wage law was passed in the Canadian province of British Columbia, with the intent and effect of pricing Japanese immigrants out of jobs in the lumbering industry.
A well regarded Harvard professor of that era referred approvingly to Australia's minimum wage law as a means to "protect the white Australian's standard of living from the invidious competition of the colored races, particularly of the Chinese" who were willing to work for less.
In South Africa, during the era of apartheid, white labor unions urged that a minimum wage law be applied to all races, to keep black workers from taking jobs away from white unionized workers by working for less than the union pay scale.
Some supporters of the first federal minimum wage law in the United States -- the Davis-Bacon Act of 1931 -- used exactly the same rationale, citing the fact that Southern construction companies, using non-union black workers, were able to come north and under-bid construction companies using unionized white labor.
These supporters of minimum wage laws understood long ago something that today's supporters of such laws seem not to have bothered to think through. People whose wages are raised by law do not necessarily benefit, because they are often less likely to be hired at the imposed minimum wage rate.
Labor unions have been supporters of minimum wage laws in countries around the world, since these laws price non-union workers out of jobs, leaving more jobs for union members.
People who are content to advocate policies that sound good, whether for political reasons or just to feel good about themselves, often do not bother to think through the consequences beforehand, or to check the results afterwards.
If they thought things through, how could they have imagined that having large numbers of idle teenage boys hanging out on the streets together would be good for any community -- especially in places where most of these youngsters were raised by single mothers, another unintended consequence, in this case, of well-meaning welfare policies?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)Strategy, Ideology and the Close of the Syrian Crisis
By George Friedman
It is said that when famed Austrian diplomat Klemens von Metternich heard of the death of the Turkish ambassador, he said, "I wonder what he meant by that?" True or not, serious or a joke, it points out a problem of diplomacy. In searching for the meaning behind every gesture, diplomats start to regard every action merely as a gesture. In the past month, the president of the United States treated the act of bombing Syria as a gesture intended to convey meaning rather than as a military action intended to achieve some specific end. This is the key to understanding the tale that unfolded over the past month.
When President Barack Obama threatened military action in retaliation for what he claimed was the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government, he intended a limited strike that would not destroy the weapons. Destroying them all from the air would require widespread air attacks over an extensive period of time, and would risk releasing the chemicals into the atmosphere. The action also was not intended to destroy Syrian President Bashar al Assad's regime. That, too, would be difficult to do from the air, and would risk creating a power vacuum that the United States was unwilling to manage. Instead, the intention was to signal to the Syrian government that the United States was displeased.
The threat of war is useful only when the threat is real and significant. This threat, however, was intended to be insignificant. Something would be destroyed, but it would not be the chemical weapons or the regime. As a gesture, therefore, what it signaled was not that it was dangerous to incur American displeasure, but rather that American displeasure did not carry significant consequences. The United States is enormously powerful militarily and its threats to make war ought to be daunting, but instead, the president chose to frame the threat such that it would be safe to disregard it.
Avoiding Military Action
In fairness, it was clear at the beginning that Obama did not wish to take military action against Syria. Two weeks ago I wrote that this was "a comedy in three parts: the reluctant warrior turning into the raging general and finding his followers drifting away, becoming the reluctant warrior again." Last week in Geneva, the reluctant warrior re-appeared, put aside his weapons and promised not to attack Syria.
When he took office, Obama did not want to engage in any war. His goal was to raise the threshold for military action much higher than it had been since the end of the Cold War, when Desert Storm, Somalia, Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq and other lesser interventions formed an ongoing pattern in U.S. foreign policy. Whatever the justifications for any of these, Obama saw the United States as being overextended by the tempo of war. He intended to disengage from war and to play a lesser role in general in managing the international system. At most, he intended to be part of the coalition of nations, not the leader and certainly not the lone actor.
He clearly regarded Syria as not meeting the newly raised standard. It was embroiled in a civil war, and the United States had not been successful in imposing its will in such internal conflicts. Moreover, the United States did not have a favorite in the war. Washington has a long history of hostility toward the al Assad regime. But it is also hostile to the rebels, who -- while they might have some constitutional democrats among their ranks -- have been increasingly falling under the influence of radical jihadists. The creation of a nation-state governed by such factions would re-create the threat posed by Afghanistan and leading to Sept. 11, and do so in a country that borders Turkey, Iraq, Jordan, Israel and Lebanon. Unless the United States was prepared to try its hand again once again at occupation and nation-building, the choice for Washington had to be "none of the above."
Strategy and the specifics of Syria both argued for American distance, and Obama followed this logic. Once chemical weapons were used, however, the reasoning shifted. Two reasons explain this shift.
WMD and Humanitarian Intervention
One was U.S. concerns over weapons of mass destruction. From the beginning of the Cold War until the present, the fear of nuclear weapons has haunted the American psyche. Some would say that this is odd given that the United States is the only nation that has used atomic bombs. I would argue that it is precisely because of this. Between Hiroshima and mutual assured destruction there was a reasonable dread of the consequences of nuclear war. Pearl Harbor had created the fear that war might come unexpectedly at any moment, and intimate awareness of Hiroshima and Nagasaki generated fear of sudden annihilation in the United States.
Other weapons capable of massive annihilation of populations joined nuclear weapons, primarily biological and chemical weapons. Robert Oppenheimer, who oversaw the scientific work of the Manhattan Project, employed the term "weapon of mass destruction" to denote a class of weapons able to cause destruction on the scale of Hiroshima and beyond, a category that could include biological and chemical weapons.
The concept of weapons of mass destruction eventually shifted from "mass destruction" to the weapon itself. The use and even possession of such weapons by actors who previously had not possessed them came to be seen as a threat to the United States. The threshold of mass destruction ceased to be the significant measure, and instead the cause of death in a given attack took center stage. Tens of thousands have died in the Syrian civil war. The only difference in the deaths that prompted Obama's threats was that chemical weapons had caused them. That distinction alone caused the U.S. foreign policy apparatus to change its strategy.
The second cause of the U.S. shift is more important. All American administrations have a tendency to think ideologically, and there is an ideological bent heavily represented in the Obama administration that feels that U.S. military power ought to be used to prevent genocide. This feeling dates back to World War II and the Holocaust, and became particularly intense over Rwanda and Bosnia, where many believe the United States could have averted mass murder. Many advocates of American intervention in humanitarian operations would oppose the use of military force in other circumstances, but regard its use as a moral imperative to stop mass murder.
The combined fear of weapons of mass destruction and the ideology of humanitarian intervention became an irresistible force for Obama. The key to this process was that the definition of genocide and the definition of mass destruction had both shifted such that the deaths of less than 1,000 people in a war that has claimed tens of thousands of lives resulted in demands for intervention on both grounds.
The pressure on Obama grew inside his administration from those who were concerned with the use of weapons of mass destruction and those who saw another Rwanda brewing. The threshold for morally obligatory intervention was low, and it eventually canceled out the much higher strategic threshold Obama had set. It was this tension that set off the strange oscillations in Obama's handling of the affair. Strategically, he wanted nothing to do with Syria. But the ideology of weapons of mass destruction and the ideology of humanitarian intervention forced him to shift course.
An Impossible Balance
Obama tried to find a balance where there was none between his strategy that dictated non-intervention and his ideology that demanded something be done. His solution was to loudly threaten military action that he and his secretary of state both indicated would be minimal. The threatened action aroused little concern from the Syrian regime, which has fought a bloody two-year war. Meanwhile, the Russians, who were seeking to gain standing by resisting the United States, could paint Washington as reckless and unilateral.
Obama wanted all of this to simply go away, but he needed some guarantee that chemical weapons in Syria would be brought under control. For that, he needed al Assad's allies the Russians to promise to do something. Without that, he would have been forced to take ineffective military action despite not wanting to. Therefore, the final phase of the comedy played out in Geneva, the site of grave Cold War meetings (it is odd that Obama accepted this site given its symbolism), where the Russians agreed in some unspecified way on an uncertain time frame to do something about Syria's chemical weapons. Obama promised not to take action that would have been ineffective anyway, and that was the end of it.
In the end, this agreement will be meaningful only if it is implemented. Taking control of 50 chemical weapons sites in the middle of a civil war obviously raises some technical questions on implementation. The core of the deal is, of course, completely vague. At the heart of it, the United States agreed not to ask the U.N. Security Council for permission
to attack in the event the Syrians renege. It also does not clarify the means for evaluating and securing the Syrian weapons. The details of the plan will likely end up ripping it apart in the end. But the point of the agreement was not dealing with chemical weapons, it was to buy time and release the United States from its commitment to bomb something in Syria.
There were undoubtedly other matters discussed, including the future of Syria. The United States and Russia both want the al Assad regime in place to block the Sunnis. They both want the civil war to end, the Americans to reduce the pressure on themselves to aid the Sunnis, the Russians to reduce the chances of the al Assad regime collapsing. Allowing Syria to become another Lebanon (historically, they are one country) with multiple warlords -- or more precisely, acknowledging that this has already happened -- is the logical outcome of all of this.
Consequences
The most important outcome globally is that the Russians sat with the Americans as equals for the first time since the collapse of the Soviet Union. In fact, the Russians sat as mentors, positioning themselves as appearing to instruct the immature Americans in crisis management. To that end, Putin's op-ed in The New York Times was brilliant.
This should not be seen merely as imagery: The image of the Russians forcing the Americans to back down resonates all along the Russian periphery. In the former Soviet satellites, the complete disarray in Europe on this and most other issues, the vacillation of the United States, and the symbolism of Kerry and Lavrov negotiating as equals will shape behavior for quite awhile.
This will also be the case in countries like Azerbaijan, a key alternative to Russian energy that borders Russia and Iran. Azerbaijan faces a second consequence of the administration's ideology, one we have seen during the Arab Spring. The Obama administration has demonstrated a tendency to judge regimes that are potential allies on the basis of human rights without careful consideration of whether the alternative might be far worse. Coupled with an image of weakness, this could cause countries like Azerbaijan to reconsider their positions vis-a-vis the Russians.
The alignment of moral principles with national strategy is not easy under the best of circumstances. Ideologies tend to be more seductive in generalized terms, but not so coherent in specific cases. This is true throughout the political spectrum. But it is particularly intense in the Obama administration, where the ideas of humanitarian intervention, absolutism in human rights, and opposition to weapons of mass destruction collide with a strategy of limiting U.S. involvement -- particularly military involvement -- in the world. The ideologies wind up demanding judgments and actions that the strategy rejects.
The result is what we have seen over the past month with regard to Syria: A constant tension between ideology and strategy that caused the Obama administration to search for ways to do contradictory things. This is not a new phenomenon in the United States, and this case will not reduces its objective power. But it does create a sense of uncertainty about what precisely the United States intends. When that happens in a minor country, this is not problematic. In the leading power, it can be dangerous.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)Russia to build second nuclear plant for Iran, deliver S-300
Amir Mizroch - Israel Hayom,
Russia will supply Iran with a modified version of the vaunted S-300 anti-aircraft system as well as build a new nuclear reactor for the Ayatollah's regime, the Russian daily Kommersant business newspaper reported Wednesday.
The report comes hot on the heels of Russian President Vladimir Putin's diplomatic proposal to place Syria's chemical weapons stockpiles under international supervision and thus avoid a U.S. strike on Syrian President Bashar Assad's forces. Kommersant reported that the deal between Moscow and Tehran was formulated as part of Russia and Iran's “commonality of views on the situation in Syria.”
“We were in the same boat. Strategically, we see a different future for Syria, but tactically both countries oppose U.S. intervention,” Public Policy Research Center Director Vladimir Yevseyev told the paper.
Israel views the Russian-Syria deal with great suspicion, with President Shimon Peres saying that the Syrians cannot be trusted. Israel has also applied strong pressure on the Kremlin not to deliver the sophisticated S-300 anti-aircraft system to the Iranians.
Kommersant reported that Russia would also build a second nuclear reactor at Bushehr. Iran and Russia signed an agreement in 1995 to repair and complete the 1,000-megawatt reactor, which was finished in 2011. Atomic Energy Organization of Iran chief Ali Akbar Salehi told IRNA this week that Russia would likely hand over the operation of the first plant to Iran in three months' time.
Putin will discuss the details this Friday during his first meeting with Iranian President Hasan Rouhani in Bishkek, Kyrgystan, Russian media reported.
According to the sources close to the Kremlin, Russia will supply Iran with five battalions of the S-300VM Antey-2500 system, a modified export version of the S-300V. A key condition of the transaction is that Tehran withdraw its $4 billion lawsuit over Moscow's failure to deliver the systems under the previous contract. Quoting a security policy expert, Kommersant said the anti-aircraft batteries Russia would provide were even better than the ones Iran originally bought.
Iranian Ambassador to Russia Seyed Mahmoud Reza Sajadi confirmed Tehran’s readiness for the compromise, the Russian Interfax news agency reported.
Putin's second order of business with Iran is in the atomic energy sector. According to Kommersant, Moscow and Tehran are ready to sign an agreement to build a second nuclear plant in Bushehr, Iran.
Putin’s press secretary Dmitry Peskov said the agenda of the Russian president’s talks had not been announced, although he confirmed that nuclear energy and the Bushehr nuclear power plant were some of the topics up for discussion.
“They will discuss cooperation in the atomic energy sector, including in the context of the Bushehr nuclear power plant. The subject cannot be avoided,” he said. “The issue of military-technical cooperation is also on the agenda.”
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4) Port Of Damaged Goods: India's Dangerous Investment In Iran's Chahabar
India has launched a bold initiative to bolster its influence Southeast and Central Asia. The Indian government is investing significant capital in Iran's Chabahar free-trade zone and the surrounding infrastructure to secure its economic interests throughout the region, reduce Pakistan's sphere of influence and compete with China. While this policy seems attractive in the short term, this course of action is fraught with unanticipated dangers. Investing in Chabahar not only allows Iran's rogue regime to fill its coffers with the hard currency it needs to repress its people and facilitate terrorism, but may also harm India's strategic relationship with one of its most important allies, the United States.
Traditionally, the relationship between India and Iran has revolved around trade. In 2010, the two countries conducted $14 billion worth of business, mostly in oil and gas. India's decision to invest $100 million in Chabahar, a port in the Sistan-o-Balochistan province on the southeastern tip of Iran, is part of this relationship.
In addition, Chabahar offers India the ability to bypass Pakistan, which often prevents India from transferring goods to landlocked Afghanistan. In recent years, India has invested heavily in roads connecting the Kandahar-Herat highway to Iran so it can get goods and services into Afghanistan using this alternate route. India is being driven by a desire for increased trade with countries throughout Central Asia — including Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan — and for direct access to Afghanistan's mineral market, worth an estimated $1 trillion to $3 trillion. Investing a relatively small sum of money would, in theory, yield a very nice return: at least 60-90 years of operating Chabahar. Given the likelihood of securing the "Iran route," India and Afghanistan are now looking to build a 600-mile railway line connecting Chabahar to Afghanistan's Hajigak region, which contains the country's largest iron ore deposits.
India is also keen to counter Chinese competition in its backyard. Both India and China are investing in critical marine gateways in the Gulf of Oman, primarily for financial gain and to secure a safer corridor to transport their energy and commodities. While India invests in Chabahar, China is pouring resources into developing Gwadar, an equally important port located less than 50 miles away in Pakistan.
Iran is looking to use Chabahar to develop its infrastructure and levy sizable duties, and India's investment serves as a critical lifeline for Iran in the face of international sanctions. For India, however, despite Chabahar's financial advantages, there is more to lose than gain by doing business with the world's most notorious state sponsor of terrorism.
India's relationship with the United States is very important to it. Bilateral trade currently stands at around $106 billion annually — over 10 times India's trade with Iran — and there are current negotiations to enter into a free-trade agreement. Whether increased investment in Iran, a country targeted by American sanctions, will hurt the U.S.-India alliance remains to be determined, but it certainly cannot help.
In the last decade, the international community, particularly the United States, has targeted over 180 Iranian entities — individuals, companies and financial institutions — freezing their assets, blocking their access to the international financial sector and imposing travel bans in an effort to force Iran to change its nuclear policy. Any Indian company that plays a role in developing Chabahar could be targeted by the U.S. Treasury Department and placed on its blacklist. The risk to India's larger strategic interests should be reason enough to reconsider.
But additionally, India's bet on Afghanistan or Chabahar may turn out to be a poor choice. Afghanistan remains politically unstable. Any government that comes to power after the 2014 elections, if led by the Taliban or another Pakistani-supported political faction, may not be as enamored of increased trade with Iran or India as the current government is. And Chabahar is located in one of Iran's most explosive regions, where the Sunni Baloch insurgents have carried out repeated attacks against the regime in recent years.
Finally, the Islamic Republic endorses radical Islam and a strict interpretation of sharia law, which is starkly at odds with the tenets upon which India rests. Iran's heinous record on human rights is well known, and is criticized by Iranian citizens, international and non-governmental organizations and even the UN. The government regularly engages in torture, rape and killing of civilians, dissidents and political prisoners. The ideals of Indian leaders such as Mahatma Gandhi could not be further from those of Iran's Supreme Leader, Khameinei. As a country that has fought a long struggle against terror attacks in Kashmir, Mumbai and other places, India has itself been a victim of the radical ideology that Iran spreads and supports.
India should consider whether potential loss of access to the U.S. market, instability in Afghanistan and Chabahar and support for a state sponsor of terrorism is worth the bang for the buck. It should cease investing in Iran's infrastructure so long as the Islamic Republic continues it march towards nuclearization, oppresses its people and proliferates terrorism.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5)INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
Too late now to plead the Fifth?
While a possible "wag the dog" attack on Syria and other "phony" scandals
like Benghazi have grabbed the headlines, Congress has continued its
investigation into the Obama administration's targeting of tea party groups
that sprang up in opposition to ObamaCare by the agency charged with
enforcing it, the Internal Revenue Service.
like Benghazi have grabbed the headlines, Congress has continued its
investigation into the Obama administration's targeting of tea party groups
that sprang up in opposition to ObamaCare by the agency charged with
enforcing it, the Internal Revenue Service.
In case anyone forgot, Lois Lerner, former head of the Exempt Organizations
office of the IRS, who invoked her Fifth Amendment rights rather than tell
what she did and knew about the targeting of tea party and other
conservative groups, is still being paid with your tax dollars while on
"administrative leave."
office of the IRS, who invoked her Fifth Amendment rights rather than tell
what she did and knew about the targeting of tea party and other
conservative groups, is still being paid with your tax dollars while on
"administrative leave."
Yet another reason for her silence has been unearthed by a 2011 email
released by the House Ways and Means Committee in which the woman who
claimed she had done nothing wrong admitted that the tea party was not only
targeted, but targeted at her direction, in response to the Citizens United
case that so outraged President Obama because it reaffirmed the free-speech
rights of those who oppose him.
released by the House Ways and Means Committee in which the woman who
claimed she had done nothing wrong admitted that the tea party was not only
targeted, but targeted at her direction, in response to the Citizens United
case that so outraged President Obama because it reaffirmed the free-speech
rights of those who oppose him.
In the February 2011 email, Lerner advised her staff - including then-Exempt
Organizations Technical Manager Michael Seto and then-Rulings and Agreements
director Holly Paz - that a tea party matter is "very dangerous" and
something "Counsel and (Lerner adviser) Judy Kindell need to be in on."
Lerner added: "Cincy should probably NOT have these cases."
It was Paz, a D.C.-based top deputy in the IRS division that handled
applications for tax-exempt status, who told congressional investigators she
was personally involved in reviewing tea party applications for tax-exempt
status as far back as 2010.
Organizations Technical Manager Michael Seto and then-Rulings and Agreements
director Holly Paz - that a tea party matter is "very dangerous" and
something "Counsel and (Lerner adviser) Judy Kindell need to be in on."
Lerner added: "Cincy should probably NOT have these cases."
It was Paz, a D.C.-based top deputy in the IRS division that handled
applications for tax-exempt status, who told congressional investigators she
was personally involved in reviewing tea party applications for tax-exempt
status as far back as 2010.
On May 22, the day after Paz was interviewed by investigators, Lerner
refused to answer questions from lawmakers at a congressional hearing,
citing her right not to incriminate herself.
refused to answer questions from lawmakers at a congressional hearing,
citing her right not to incriminate herself.
Like the Internet video the Benghazi terrorist attack was blamed on, the
only thing phony about the IRS scandal is the administration's cover story
that a couple of rogue agents in the Cincinnati office concocted and
executed this most blatant abuse of power by the most powerful and feared
agency of government. Lerner's email further blows out of the water that
discredited fiction.
only thing phony about the IRS scandal is the administration's cover story
that a couple of rogue agents in the Cincinnati office concocted and
executed this most blatant abuse of power by the most powerful and feared
agency of government. Lerner's email further blows out of the water that
discredited fiction.
It also confirms a suspected reason for the planned intimidation and
hamstringing of conservative opposition to the Obama administration's
policies, saying that those tea party group applications for tax-exempt
status could end up being the "vehicle to go to court" to get more clarity
on the 2010 Supreme Court ruling on campaign finance rules.
hamstringing of conservative opposition to the Obama administration's
policies, saying that those tea party group applications for tax-exempt
status could end up being the "vehicle to go to court" to get more clarity
on the 2010 Supreme Court ruling on campaign finance rules.
This would explain the bizarre and repeated questionnaires requesting lists
of donors, books members read, contents of their prayers, texts of speeches
given before the group and whether any member is thinking of running for
office. The Obama administration was gathering information for possible
future court cases to gut Citizens United while it was keeping its political
opponents at bay.
of donors, books members read, contents of their prayers, texts of speeches
given before the group and whether any member is thinking of running for
office. The Obama administration was gathering information for possible
future court cases to gut Citizens United while it was keeping its political
opponents at bay.
"There is increasing and overwhelming evidence that Lois Lerner and
high-level IRS employees in Washington were abusing their power to prevent
conservative groups from organizing and carrying out their missions," Ways
and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp, R-Mich., said of the emails from
Lerner.
high-level IRS employees in Washington were abusing their power to prevent
conservative groups from organizing and carrying out their missions," Ways
and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp, R-Mich., said of the emails from
Lerner.
Using government power to target conservative opponents of liberal Democrats
is nothing new for Lerner. As we've written, the IRS scandal may have its
roots in "Chicago way" politics with the 1996 targeting of Illinois
conservative Al Salvi by a familiar name, Lois Lerner, then head of the
Enforcement Division of the Federal Elections Commission.
No need to plead the Fifth, Ms. Lerner. You've already incriminated yourself
and the administration you serve, no matter how many times you and the
president intone, "I am not a crook."
is nothing new for Lerner. As we've written, the IRS scandal may have its
roots in "Chicago way" politics with the 1996 targeting of Illinois
conservative Al Salvi by a familiar name, Lois Lerner, then head of the
Enforcement Division of the Federal Elections Commission.
No need to plead the Fifth, Ms. Lerner. You've already incriminated yourself
and the administration you serve, no matter how many times you and the
president intone, "I am not a crook."
No comments:
Post a Comment