White Groups Defend Federal Profiling of Minorities

Two columnists at that bastion of white privilege, New Republic, along with a like-minded colleague at the New Yorker, have taken to their organizations’ publications to defend the Internal Revenue Service’s targeting of minority groups, justifying the IRS’s actions to their overwhelmingly white, well-to-do readerships.

We begin this review of naked bigotry with Alec McGillis’s disinformation campaign to justify this abhorrent corruption of America’s polity:

You are in your cubicle in Cincinnati, and your office is suddenly swamped with a surge in applications—rising from 1,500 to 3,400 the past few years. This surge is driven by two factors. One is the series of court rulings, such as the Supreme Court’sCitizens United decision, that encourage political operatives to use 501(c)(4)’s as a way to funnel huge undisclosed donations into television ads, regardless of the IRS rules for the groups. The other is the swell in grassroots activism that is coming almost entirely from the right thanks to post-2008 tea party ferment.

McGillis is repeating a shameless, self-serving lie uttered by IRS apparatchiks:

Both Steven Miller, the agency’s acting commissioner until he stepped down Wednesday, and Lois Lerner, director of the agency’s exempt-organization division, have said over the past week that IRS officials started the scrutiny after observing a surge in applications for status as 501(c)(4) “social welfare” groups. Both officials cited an increase from about 1,500 applications in 2010 and to nearly 3,500 in 2012. President Obama ask Mr. Miller to resign on Wednesday.

The scrutiny began, however, in March 2010, before an uptick could have been observed, according to data contained in the audit released Tuesday from the Treasury Department’s inspector general for tax administration.

The number of 501(c)(4) applications for all of 2010 was actually less than in 2009.

That “Big Lie” is still being used to justify the IRS’s actions by like-minded bigots across the country.

Truth has no place in eliminationists’ rhetoric. Read more ›

+2

0

  

The Answer to Obamagate is Hiding in Plain Sight

Who in the White House was confident enough to have said the following:

“After we win this election, it’s our turn.  Payback time.  Everyone not with us is against us and they better be ready because we don’t forget. The ones who helped us will be rewarded, the ones who opposed us will get what they deserve. There is going to be hell to pay.  Congress won’t be a problem for us this time. No election to worry about after this is over….” 

Read more ›

+4

0

  

Hey Obamabots, Tapper’s “Leak” Is Meaningless

A lot of the usual suspects are grabbing onto Jake Tapper’s Memeorandum topping report, “CNN exclusive: White House email contradicts Benghazi leaks.” They are all pointing to one paragraph as proof of… something:

Whoever provided those accounts seemingly invented the notion that Rhodes wanted the concerns of the State Department specifically addressed. While Nuland, particularly, had expressed a desire to remove mentions of specific terrorist groups and CIA warnings about the increasingly dangerous assignment, Rhodes put no emphasis at all in his e-mail on the State Department’s concerns.

They took that paragraph and were off to the races: From Greg Sergeant at WaPo’s “Plum Line” we hear: “Jake Tapper blows a hole in Benghazi ‘scandal’.” From Steve Benen at MSLSD’s “Maddow Blog” we’re told, “Story on Benghazi leaks starts to unravel.” From the Mother Hen of Hipster Douchebag Central, Joan Walsh, we get “Who doctored a White House email?” From Karoli at Crooks and Liars, “Did Someone Leak Doctored Benghazi Email?” From under a rock in the deepest part of the Fever Swamps, “Oops: ABC’s Benghazi ‘scoop’ was based on fabricated email.”

Sigh. It’s no wonder that being so deep in the tank for the Unicorn King necessarily leads to abject stupidity among the Obamabots. Here’s Tom McGuire cutting the string off the HopeyChange! balloon they’re all clinging to:

Read more ›

+2

0