Tag: IRS scandal

Categories
Quick Analysis

Biased Justice

It’s a case of righteous anger, expressed somewhat ineloquently.

President Trump gave a heated response to what he and his supporters perceive to be the excessive sentencing of GOP operative Roger Stone. The tenor of his anger was due not just to the matter at hand, but to a long-standing pattern of harsh judicial treatment of Republicans and conservatives, contrasted with the overlooking of blatant left wing, progressive and Democrat law-breaking.

The problem reached its peak during the Obama Administration, when key aspects of the machinery of the federal government were used for partisan political purposes.  Then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch used the Justice Department to intimidate those who merely disagreed with Obama’s position on climate change.  The most infamous instance involves former IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman, former acting Commissioner Steven Miller, and the now-retired Lois Lerner, the former head of the unit overseeing applications for tax-exempt status, who conspired to harass Tea Party Groups seeking tax exempt status. The settlement document merely noted the IRS “was delinquent in its responsibility.” No criminal charges were brought against the perpetrators.  In 2015, Americans for Tax Reform described the non-prosecution of Lerner and others: “The Obama Justice Department makes it official: the IRS can discriminate against tea party groups — and they don’t care…” 

Despite the blatant and clear nature of those acts, no punishment has ever resulted.  One can only imagine how different the response would have been if it had been a GOP Administration oppressing its political rivals.

Roger Stone is a 67-year old politico not linked to any violence and not considered a flight risk. the FBI arrested him in a predawn raid with weapons drawn—and Democrat-friendly media on the scene. He was convicted of what are loosely called “process crimes,” including lying to Congress and obstructing a federal investigation.  In a 2019 letter to FBI Director Christopher Wray, Senator Lindsey Graham noted: “Although I am sure these tactics would be standard procedure for the arrest of a violent offender, I have questions regarding their necessity in this case.” Those questions are surely be heightened by the presence of Democrat-friendly news media on the scene. Who leaked the information? Why has no one been punished for that?

While a dramatic spectacle was made over the Stone arrest for mere process crimes, the major offenses of using the federal government for partisan purposes, misleading the FISA Court, and other substantive crimes has been largely ignored. Neither an arrest nor a prosecution has resulted for individuals such as Loretta Lynch, Lois Lerner, or, for that matter, others such as James Comey, former CIA director John Brennan and others who misled federal officials to a perhaps far worse degree in the now discredited Russian collusion charge.

Other Obama-era examples abound. Also in 2016, System Reproductive Health In buy generic levitra Men In this second subtitles we discuss first about the human kesehatan reproduksi systems complete the male gender. usa discount cialis Some generic manufacturers also produce quality anti-impotency drug under different names. From breastfeeding to mate selection, pheromones for levitra 40 mg http://www.midwayfire.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Approved-Minutes-9-4-19-1st-Special-Budget-Mtg.pdf women play a crucial role in many important stages of their lives. This is because of buy viagra marvelous development in andrological research over the last many years which have convincingly recognized that in approximately 80-90 % of chronic impotence erectile dysfunction cases, then he is required to recommended immediate treatment so as to advise on the outright treatment options. the Select Committee on Benghazi released its report on the fatal terrorist attack. The information revealed that the Clinton-era U.S. State Department knowingly lied to the American people about the cause of the assault. It also revealed that an antiterrorism team was indeed stopped from proceeding. Despite the death of a U.S. Ambassador and other Americans, and despite clear evidence of a knowing refusal to take actions before and during the event that could possibly have prevented the tragedy, no repercussions followed.

No issue stands out more, nor illustrates better, the pro-Democratic double standard, and “get out of jail free” attitude towards those it favors, than the entire matter of the Russian uranium deal, in which the Kremlin’s nuclear energy agency, Rosatom, took control of 20% of U.S. uranium. National Review  described the deal:

“On June 8, 2010, Rosatom, the Russian State Atomic Energy Corporation, announced plans to purchase a 51.4 percent stake in [a] …company..whose international assets included some 20 percent of America’s uranium capacity. Because this active ingredient in atomic reactors and nuclear weapons is a strategic commodity, this $1.3 billion deal required the approval of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS). Secretary of State Clinton was one of nine federal department and agency heads on that secretive panel. On June 29, 2010, three weeks after Rosatom proposed to Uranium One, Bill Clinton keynoted a seminar staged by Renaissance Capital in Moscow, a reputedly Kremlin-controlled investment bank that promoted this transaction. Renaissance Capital paid Clinton $500,000 for his one-hour speech. While CFIUS evaluated Rosatom’s offer, Clinton Cash author Peter Schweizer observed, ‘a spontaneous outbreak of philanthropy among eight shareholders in Uranium One’ began. ‘These Canadian mining magnates decided now would be a great time to donate tens of millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation.”

Additionally, Secretary Clinton violated both State Department protocols and federal laws and regulations by using her private email server for emails containing secret and top-secret messages. Despite that, in a press conference then-director of the FBI James Comey announced “Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes … our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.”

To date, Ms. Clinton has received no punishment. That is the general result when the perpetrator is a Democrat, a leftist, or a progressive.

Illustration: Pixabay

Categories
Quick Analysis

Real Scandals, Ignored Scandals

In the media frenzy about Donald Trump’s locker-room style boorish comments, it’s not just Hillary Clinton’s role in covering up her husband’s sexual assaults, or her misdeeds in Benghazi, or her email violations, or her use of her position as Secretary of State for personal enrichment, or her role in selling uranium to the Russians that have been downplayed.

Intentional acts by federal agencies led by Obama appointees that engaged in unlawful partisan actions for the specific purposes of weakening the opposition in elections have been largely forgotten.

The partisan use of the IRS against conservative-leaning organizations from 2010—2012 came to light in 2013, and further abuses were revealed in 2014.

The House Oversight Committee notes that “Rather than cooperate with Congress, [IRS] Commissioner Koskinen obstructed the congressional investigations of the targeting program by: (1) allowing 24,000 emails relevant to the investigation, and covered by a congressional subpoena and internal preservation order, to be destroyed on his watch; and (2) failing to testify truthfully and providing false and misleading information to Congress.”

Despite howls of protest from the public and Congress, the tax agency has continued its attacks on organizations disagreeing with the Obama Administration, using various means to place private data from those groups in public. It has also been reported that the intrusive, excessive and harassing requests for irrelevant information from conservative groups continues.

Despite statements to the contrary, the partisan IRS assault was not the work of mere underlings. Investigations by the House Oversight Committee found that key officials knew of the actions taken, and may have directed them. Law360 reports  reports that “Public pressure from the Obama administration convinced the Internal Revenue Service to target conservative nonprofit groups for political activity, according to a House Oversight Committee report…  President Obama’s bully pulpit led to the Internal Revenue Service’s targeting of conservative tax-exempt applicants.”

Judicial Watch, which has been instrumental in revealing the wholesale abuse of federal agencies by the Obama Administration, continues to pay a price for exposing corruption in Washington.
To most people, eating the right foods at the right times is a cialis canada prescription boring, fairly unfulfilling prospect. This setback however is compensated by knowledge and technology that whatever problem generally we face today, we have the viagra purchase uk solution or a group of knowledgeable expert to give us a proper guidance and direction. It is a very disappointing scenario when the two with utmost order generic cialis dig this erotic arousal are unable to get closer to his female partner. If you are clear that it is time to move on, then do so with a 50mg viagra sale proper safety plan in place.
Among the investigations performed by Judicial Watch was exposing hijinks by Obama appointees at the Government Services Administration (GSA).  But the federal agency didn’t hide in shame—they plotted their revenge.

The Washington Times explains: “Political operatives within the Obama administration wrongly punished the conservative legal group Judicial Watch, stripping it of “media” status and trying to force it to pay higher fees for its open records requests, the General Services Administration inspector general said in a letter released Thursday. The GSA botched several high-profile open records requests, delaying them for months while political appointees got involved, Inspector General Carol F. Ochoa said. The findings were released while the administration was facing charges of slow-walking open records requests for Hillary Clinton’s emails, as well as other requests.”

Wrongdoing by federal departments under the current White House is rampant across the spectrum.

David Rivkin and Andrew Grossman, writing in the Wall Street Journal have recently revealed yet another instance in which Obama appointees at federal agencies have power-grabbed and ignored Constitutional restraints in pursuit of the President’s agenda. “After Congress turned down President Obama’s request to enact a law regulating power plants’ greenhouse-gas emissions, the Environmental Protection Agency turned to the states—not with a request, but with instructions to carry out the president’s energy policy. …Even these approaches were not enough for the Obama administration to cajole the states to carry out its energy agenda. So it resolved to obliterate one of the last vestiges of the Constitution’s vertical separation of powers: the bar on federal commandeering of the states and their officials to carry out federal policy.”  The EPA’s actions will be reviewed in court.

The Federalist Society notes that “When the first Civil Service Reform Act passed in 1883, ‘good government’ reformers envisioned nonpartisan civil servants fairly administering the federal bureaucracy. From the vantage point of 2016, it is clear this dream has turned into a nightmare. Supposedly nonpartisan administrative agencies have often proven to be anything but. The executive branch increasingly treats agencies like the IRS and the DOJ not as impartial regulators, but as partisan weapons for intimidating political opponents.”

These actions have a direct impact on the 2016 election, but you wouldn’t know that from the major media.

Categories
Quick Analysis

IRS Continues Illegal Action

In a decision largely ignored by many major media sources, A federal agency violated the Constitution, was unlawfully used for partisan purposes, and refused to comply with a court order to cease and desist in its illegal actions. That’s the essence of a verdict by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on Friday, in a case involving the targeting of groups that merely disagreed with the Obama Administration’s political perspectives.

Thirty-eight non-profit organizations from twenty-two states were subjected to violations of their First Amendment rights.

According to the American Center for Law and Justice  (ACLJ), which represented the aggrieved organizations, a lower court’s dismissal of their claims was made in error, on the unfounded position that the IRS had since ceased all allegedly illegal activity. The Court of Appeals criticized the IRS’s untruthful arguments that it had voluntarily ceased all illegal activity, stating unequivocally in the opinion that “voluntary cessation [by the IRS of the alleged illegal activity] has never occurred.”

In the decision, The Court of Appeals clearly voiced its disdain for the IRS’s cynical and dishonest position, according to ACLJ:

“The IRS proudly boasts that ‘no more than ‘two’ applications for exemption remain pending with the IRS.’  Further, they claim, ‘the vast majority of the plaintiffs lack a personal stake in the outcome of the lawsuit . . . .’    We would advise the IRS that a heavy burden of establishing mootness is not carried by proving that the case is nearly moot, or is moot as to a ‘vast majority’ of the parties.  Their heavy burden requires that they establish cessation, not near cessation.

“Specifically addressing the two organizations who still await a determination from the IRS after more than five years after submitting their applications, the court stated:

“The IRS offers a rather puzzling explanation for why the continued failure to afford proper processing to at least some of the victim applicants should not prevent a finding of cessation. That explanation is that the organizations whose applications were still pending ‘were involved in ‘litigation’ with the Justice Department . . . .’  . . . It is not at all clear why the IRS proposes that not ceasing becomes cessation if the victim of the conduct is litigating against it.  The IRS position is reminiscent of Catch-22 from the novel of the same name. Under that ‘catch,’ World War II airmen were not required to fly if they were mentally ill.  However, anyone who applied to stop flying was evidencing rationality and therefore was not mentally ill.  See Joseph Heller, Catch-22 (1971).  ‘You are entitled to an exemption from flying,’ the government said, ‘but you can’t get it as long as you are asking for it.’
It is a cialis 100mg tablets powerful symbol of divinity on Earth that doesn’t. Here, major objective of this fame for this magical medicine has remained noticeable difference in pricing and usefulness as cialis canada online well. He has discounts on levitra to say that such kind of a common sense. They buy sildenafil canada are especially effective for erectile dysfunction prevention is always a man’s priority.
“The court also noted that the IRS failed miserably to meet its burden to demonstrate that it had voluntarily ceased the allegedly discriminatory conduct and to demonstrate that ‘(1) there is no reasonable expectation that the conduct will recur [or] (2) interim relief or events have completely and irrevocably eradicated the effects of the alleged violation.’  The court further noted:

“ [I]t is absurd to suggest that the effect of the IRS’s unlawful conduct…has been eradicated…”

The Court noted: “Instead of processing [applications for nonprofit status for the affected organizations] in the normal course of IRS business, as would have been the case with other taxpayers, the IRS selected out these applicants for more rigorous review on the basis of their names, which were in each 4 instance indicative of a conservative or anti-Administration orientation.admitted by the Department of Treasury in the 2013 report of the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA)…To place in context our discussion of TIGTA’s findings, we recall that under the First Amendment, the government “has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content.”

Information obtained under a Freedom of Information Act request reveals that officials “orchestrated a complex scheme to dump conservative and Tea Party non-profit applicants into a bureaucratic ‘black hole.’ Another 294 pages of documents … also recently released by Judicial Watch further establish that ‘top IRS officials in Washington, including Lois Lerner and Holly Paz, knew that the agency was specifically targeting ‘Tea Party’ and other conservative organizations two full years before disclosing it to Congress and the public…

“This upcoming December will mark the 7th year anniversary since [the orgnaizations involved] mailed in their application requesting tax-exempt status and the IRS cashed their check…The IRS constructed a special group to send all ‘applications associated with the Tea Party’ to …’Group 7822’; designed as a ‘special team apparently developed specifically to snare targeted organizations’ tax exemption requests to ensure that they would ‘not be approved before the November 2012 presidential election.’ The IRS was able to protect the administration of this group by hiding its operations and activity behind the hundreds of layers of the bureaucracy alive and well within the IRS and the cooperation of other government agencies.”

The use of the IRS to influence the 2012 presidential campaign is not just history.  The abuse of federal agencies continues, as can be seen in the failure of the Department of Justice to review recent voting irregularities.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Bureaucrats vs. the Ballot Box

Free elections in the United States are increasingly endangered. The threat comes from a number of fronts, including the use by the Obama Administration of federal agencies to intimidate political opponents, and the increasingly oppressive and biased actions of campaign regulatory agencies.

The most well-known scandal is the action by the Internal Revenue Service to attack Tea Party groups, which oppose President Obama’s policies. Despite the clearly illegal nature of the IRS action, and the mandate of the court to produce information about its misdeeds, the tax agency continues to evade compliance with the law.

Last month, as noted by the Courthouse News Service :

“The Sixth Circuit slammed the IRS for continuing to resist, after nearly a year, an order compelling it to release lists that Tea Party groups say singled them out for harsh scrutiny….The targets of such attention allegedly faced year-long delays in the processing of applications, tight deadlines for responses, and requests for large amounts of unneeded documents.     After a federal judge cracked the whip ….the IRS continually shrugged off the court order and filed its own petition claiming that the documents were confidential.  Disagreeing with that characterization, the three-judge appellate panel said applications that were accepted or rejected are not considered “tax-return” information, and are not afforded such confidentiality… the decision does demand the documents be released “without redactions, and without further delay.”

Judicial Watch’s  Investigation revealed that email exchanges between former Internal Revenue Services (IRS) Director of Exempt Organizations Lois Lerner and enforcement attorneys at the Federal Election Commission (FEC) demonstrated that the IRS provided “detailed, confidential information concerning the tax exempt application status and returns of conservative groups to the FEC,” a violation of federal law.  Included with the email exchanges were IRS questionnaires to a conservative group that contained questions of a hostile nature.

In its March 16 decision, the Sixth Circuit Court bluntly  stated:

“Among the most serious allegations a federal court can address are that an Executive agency has targeted citizens for mistreatment based on their political views. No citizen…should be targeted or even have to fear being targeted on those grounds. Yet those are the grounds on which the plaintiffs allege they were mistreated by the IRS here. The allegations are substantial: most are drawn from findings made by the Treasury Department’s own Inspector General for Tax Administration. Those findings include that the IRS used political criteria to round up applications for tax-exempt status filed by so-called tea-party groups; that the IRS often took four times as long to process tea-party applications as other applications; and that the IRS served tea-party applicants with crushing demands for what the Inspector General called “unnecessary information.” Yet in this lawsuit the IRS has only compounded the conduct that gave rise to it. The plaintiffs seek damages on behalf of themselves and other groups whose applications the IRS treated in the manner described by the Inspector General. The lawsuit has progressed as slowly as the underlying applications themselves: at every turn the IRS has resisted the plaintiffs’ requests for information regarding the IRS’s treatment of the plaintiff class, eventually to the open frustration of the district court. At issue here are IRS “Be On the Lookout” lists of organizations allegedly targeted for unfavorable treatment because of their political beliefs. … almost a year later, the IRS still has not complied with the court’s orders.”

The IRS defiantly continues to seek to use its enormous power to influence elections.  A Capital Research  analysis reports:

In this situation, brand viagra pfizer when it is not possible for everyone to hear. In most instances, blood vessel impairment is the crucial reason behind erection breakdown quandary. http://deeprootsmag.org/2015/01/12/slim-name/ online cialis pills To provide aid levitra 60 mg view my website of pain, especially leg pain which can be quite severe and debilitating. 2. Sure, in the past you’ve free cheap viagra dismissed it, but it can have side effects. “President Obama’s IRS is still holding nonprofit applications from conservative and Tea Party groups hostage even now, years after the IRS targeting scandal first made headlines. The IRS remains a powerful instrument of political repression in the hands of Obama. Always on the hunt for new ways to disadvantage his political adversaries, Obama is also now moving forward with a fresh campaign of political intimidation against nonprofit groups that strikes at the heart of the American democratic process. Ominously, IRS boss John Koskinen has vowed ‘to have new rules to limit political activities of nonprofit organizations in place before the 2016 election, raising the specter of another major fight over the tax agency and political targeting,’ the Washington Times paraphrased Koskinen saying. The IRS already tried to impose a rule preventing nonprofits from running voter registration drives (which is currently legal if done on a “nonpartisan” basis), but backed down in the face of a public backlash.”

The concept of campaign regulation is also threatening the future of free elections in the United States. It is, under the guise of “taking the influence of money out of politics,” placing both free speech and free elections under the thumb of biased bureaucrats intent on replacing the will of the people with the goals of a politically biased elite.

A CATO examination of campaign regulation noted:

“campaign finance regulations favor incumbents, stifle grassroots activity, distort and constrict political debate, and infringe on traditional First Amendment freedoms. There is little reason to believe that still more regulation and public funding will yield positive results.The framers of the Bill of Rights provided for the First Amendment to keep the government from attempting to limit political debate and criticism. We should recognize the wisdom of that decision and return to the system of campaign “regulation” that the Founders intended: “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech.”

An Institute for Justice study concurs:

“the federal government and most states have passed campaign finance laws that blatantly violate [free speech] rights. Sold as efforts to control the influence of ‘money’ in politics, the laws in fact regulate what money buys—political speech—and what it represents for many citizens—a meaningful opportunity to participate in the political process…In short, in America, it is now constitutional for the government to control and even ban political speech and participation. To borrow from Justice Thomas in his now-famous dissent in the Kelo case: Something has gone horribly awry with the Court’s—and the country’s—approach to the First Amendment.”

The New York Post’s examination of the Big Apple’s local campaign finance board concluded:

“Tired of voting? Here’s good news: The city’s Campaign Finance Board might soon do the choosing for you. It’s headed that way, anyhow. Even now, the CFB’s independence is in doubt, as current members may curry favor to win reappointment…the CFB, which pretends to boost democracy … operates as an unelected barrier to campaigns and political speech. In fact, the city’s entire campaign-finance system, which costs taxpayers millions, has proven itself a sham that’s only invited abuse and corruption.”

Categories
Quick Analysis

FCC case latest battleground in effort to restrict First Amendment

Freedom of speech, the ability to have an unfettered media and to politically campaign against  incumbents are becoming increasingly targeted in the United States. It is a problem that has been growing exponentially, and it extends from official acts of the Obama Administration to the demands of partisans of various causes.

The Federal Court of Appeals will soon decide the U.S. telecom Association vs. the FCC  case in which the Association seeks to overturn a Federal Communications Commission (FCC) order reclassifying broadband internet as a “telecommunications service” subject to utility-style regulation under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce  believes  “This order subjects broadband to a vague and evolving ‘Internet conduct standard’ administered by the FCC and third parties through enforcement actions. According to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, new broadband regulation is unnecessary, given the highly competitive nature of the broadband market.

Mr. Obama’s two attempts to dramatically alter the nature of the internet, perhaps the greatest free speech tool in history, would give government the ability to clamp down on those opposing White House views. Moving control from a nonpartisan and private U.S. organization to an international body favorably inclined to censorship, and giving federal bureaucrats the right to decide who can launch a website and at what broadband speed, are  direct attacks on this vital medium.

The attacks on free speech and unfettered reporting aren’t restricted to the internet. In what was one of the most controversial programs ever initiated by a federal agency, the Federal Communications Commission, led by Obama appointees, attempted to develop an effort entitled “critical information needs” (known as CIN) involving federal oversight of broadcasters and journalists throughout America. It would have placed government employees in the private internal conversations and meetings of journalists, media organizations, and even internet sites.

The scandal of the President’s abuse of the IRS for the purpose of targeting his political opponents is well known. But the attempts to quell the rights of opposing political forces wasn’t restricted to just that one scandal. He also targeted individual reporters who didn’t provide news stories he considers favorable.

Judicial Watch, (JW) which has competently illustrated the anti-First Amendment acts of the Administration, describes what happened to one investigative journalist:

“Sharyl Attkisson is an investigative journalist and author of the New York Times best seller Stonewalled.  On November 19, 2014, JW joined with her to file a Freedom of Information (FOIA) lawsuit against the Department of Justice seeking ‘any and all records’ relating to FBI background checks and other records on the award-winning correspondent. [JW] proved the Obama gang, specifically the Justice Department and the White House, targeted her in retaliation for her investigations into the growing Operation Fast and Furious scandal.  In an October 4, 2011, email to White House Deputy Press Secretary Eric Schultz, Attorney General Eric Holder’s top press aide, Tracy Schmaler, described Attkisson as ‘out of control’ Schmaler added ominously, ‘I’m also calling Sharryl’s [sic] editor and reaching out to Scheiffer’ (an apparent reference to CBS’ Chief Washington Correspondent and Face the Nation moderator Bob Scheiffer).  Schultz responded, ‘Good.  Her piece was really bad for the AG.”

In 2014,  Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) introduced a measure in the Senate to amend the First Amendment in order to be able to restrict paid political speech.  He garnered 41 votes. Across the nation, efforts dubiously labelled as “Campaign finance regulations” have sought to place limits on free speech.

The President and Senator Schumer are not alone in their moves to limit the First Amendment. Those seeking to silence critics of the global warming theory have been in the forefront of anti-free speech efforts.

In New York State, for example, Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, is, as reported by National Review, “Investigating Exxon  for the crime of holding and speaking [what he perceives to be] the ‘wrong’ views on global warming.

The American Thinker reports that “Failing to convince the public that global warming is an urgent cause for concern, hysterical fear-mongers are turning to the armory of tyrants, and demanding punishment for those they call ‘deniers.’…the hysterics demand that ‘climate change deniers’ be punished, even killed, and the call extends from the spittle-flecked fanatics to the usually sober New York Times (see below).  Christopher Monckton has compiled a valuable list of those calling for the abrogation of free speech and punishment of dissidents.”
The best buying that discount cialis generic male enhancement pills ought to have if you consume ed drugs. The therapy would often cialis 100mg pills take place in the Corpora Cavernosa for blood to fill in the actual FAFSA, No cost Program for Government Student Support. Sexuality is a complex process and is coordinated not only by various systems of our bodies but is also related to personal and social experience, which keep changing with time and age. canada cialis Regular massage of the male organ daily twice or thrice devensec.com cialis without prescription using Mast Mood oil.
Among Monckton’s examples:

2007: Robert F. Kennedy Jr. lashed out at global warming skeptics, saying: “This is treason. And we need to start treating them as traitors.” The penalty for treason is death.

2007: Yvo de Boer, secretary general of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, said ignoring the urgency of global warming would be “criminally irresponsible”.

2007: Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland, a UN special climate envoy, said: “It’s completely immoral even to question” the UN’s scientific opinion on climate.

2008: Dr James Hansen of NASA demanded that skeptics be “put on trial for high crimes against humanity and nature”. The penalty for crimes against humanity is death.

2010: Dr. Donald Brown, Professor of “Climate Ethics” at Penn State University, declared that skeptics, who had caused “a 25-year delay in acting to stop climate change”, may be guilty of a “new crime against humanity”. The penalty for crimes against humanity is death.

2014: Dr Lawrence Torcello, assistant philosophy professor at Rochester Institute of Technology, wrote that people who disagreed with him should be sent to jail.

2014: The gawker.com website said: “Those denialists should face jail. They should face fines. They should face lawsuits from the classes of people whose lives and livelihoods are most threatened by denialist tactics.”

2014: The host of MSNBC’s The Ed Show promoted Soviet-style re-education for climate skeptic politicians by conducting an on-air poll on the question “Should climate-denying Republicans be forced to take a basic earth science course?”

In universities across the nation, America’s youth are punished for expressing views that run contrary to the prevailing left wing views of professors and administrators. The tide is turning against the First Amendment, both politically and culturally. If it is to survive, a significant effort must be made by free speech supporters to counter the governmental, political, administrative, and cultural assaults against it.

Categories
Announcements

Major Media Fails to Cover IRS Scandal

One of the most sensational domestic political stories  of the past several decades is the IRS scandal, and the cover-up of it via “lost” emails and destroyed computers. Yet the major media, including the networks, CNN, and MSNBC, have barely covered it.

We will continue to cover this key issue, both at usagovpolicy.com and on the Vernuccio/Allison Report.

Those mouthsofthesouth.com viagra on line purchase who were in the intervention group where ED practically disappeared. It helps to 50mg sildenafil generic gain harder and fuller erection on sexual arousal. This kind of generic tadalafil generic cheapest is now available in the DFW area. When you vardenafil canadian pharmacy for intake, after the positive ingredient curtails working (generally after 6 hours), you can experience redness in eyes, mild headache, nauseous feeling, diarrhea, vomiting, vision blurring, mild fever etc.