Tag: Lois Lerner

Categories
Quick Analysis

Growing Assault on Free Speech, Part 2

The New York Analysis of Policy and Government concludes its latest examination of the growing rejecting of free speech.

A popular avenue for attacking free speech is the drive to impose ever increasing campaign regulations. Bradley Smith, in a National Affairs article wrote: “ To anyone following the evolution of the campaign-finance reform movement, it should have been obvious that book-banning was a straightforward implication of the McCain-Feingold law (and the long line of [campaign finance] statutes and cases that preceded it). The century-old effort to constrict the ways our elections are funded has, from the outset, put itself at odds with our constitutional tradition. It seeks to undermine not only the protections of political expression in the First Amendment, but also the limits on government in the Constitution itself.”

Attacks on free speech can also be seen on the state level. In an attempt to muzzle opposing viewpoints, New York’s elected officials are continuously seeking means to suppress free speech. The latest scandalous move comes from Assemblyman David Weprin, who represents part of NYC in the state legislature. He has introduced legislation (A5323) that is such a broad attack against the First Amendment that it has attracted national attention, garnering substantial criticism.  This is how the Washington Post’s  Eugene Volokh describes the measure: ‘…under this bill, newspapers, scholarly works, copies of books on Google Books and Amazon, online encyclopedias (Wikipedia and others) — all would have to be censored whenever a judge and jury found (or the author expected them to find) that the speech was ‘no longer material to current public debate or discourse’…And of course the bill contains no exception even for material of genuine historical interest; after all, such speech would have to be removed if it was ‘no longer material to current public debate.’ Nor is there an exception for autobiographic material, whether in a book, on a blog or anywhere else. Nor is there an exception for political figures, prominent businesspeople and others. But the deeper problem with the bill is simply that it aims to censor what people say, under a broad, vague test based on what the government thinks the public should or shouldn’t be discussing. It is clearly unconstitutional under current First Amendment law.” A failure to comply with a request to remove material from articles, search engines or other places would make the author liable for, at a minimum, a penalty of $250 per day plus attorney fees.

A recently released CATO study on the “The State of Free Speech and Tolerance in America” reveals the impact all of these attacks have had on the citizenry.

  • “Nearly three-fourths (71%) of Americans believe that political correctness has done more to silence important discussions our society needs to have… The consequences are personal-58% of Americans believe the political climate today prevents them from saying things they believe…
  • 58% of Democrats say employers should punish employees for offensive Facebook posts…
  • Two-thirds (66%) of Americans say colleges and universities aren’t doing enough to teach young Americans today about the value of free speech. When asked which is more important, 65% say colleges should “expose students to all types of viewpoints, even if they are offensive or biased against certain groups.” About a third (34%) say colleges should “prohibit offensive speech that is biased against certain groups.” But Americans are conflicted. Despite their desire for viewpoint diversity, a slim majority (53%) also agree that “colleges have an obligation to protect students from offensive speech and ideas that could create a difficult learning environment.” This share rises to 66% among Democrats, but 57% of Republicans disagree…
  • More than three-fourths (76%) of Americans say that recent campus protests and cancellations of controversial speakers are part of a “broader pattern” of how college students deal with offensive ideas… A majority (58%) say colleges should cancel controversial speakers if administrators believe the students will stage a violent protest otherwise. Democrats and Republicans again disagree: Democrats say universities should cancel the speaker (74%) and Republicans say they should not cancel the speaker (54%) if the students threaten violence…
  • A slim majority (51%) of current college students and graduate students believe a person doesn’t deserve the right of free speech if they don’t respect other people… Two-thirds of Americans (66%) say colleges and universities aren’t doing enough today to teach young Americans about the value of free speech. This is a view shared by 51% of current college and graduate students, while 46% think colleges are doing enough…
  • A little more than a quarter (29%) [of all those surveyed] think government should have the authority to stifle stories authorities say are inaccurate or biased.

There are a wide range of possible physical causes cheap canadian viagra of impotency. Kamagra polo has been functioning in order to get rid from such a situation the best option is to go for http://www.learningworksca.org/webinar-series-3-quantitative-leap-how-math-policies-can-support-transitions-to-and-through/ cialis mastercard. Healthy lifestyle greatly improves body immune system thereby decreasing the ED effect. you could try these out viagra uk shop Getting Help: Vigorelle Cream is an herbal formula that has been used in the buy uk viagra brand name pill’s development.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Growing Assault on Free Speech

The New York Analysis of Policy and Government examines the growing rejecting of free speech.

 

In the hyper-ventilating world of modern journalism, describing almost every issue as a “crises” has lost its impact.  That’s troubling, because there are several challenges facing the United States that truly are existential threats.  Arguably, the most serious is the rapidly declining support for free speech.

Several recent reports and articles illustrate the dramatic drop in devotion to the First Amendment, which, more than any other characteristic, has been the defining characteristic of American law, culture and government.

The seriousness of the threat can be seen in the multiple avenues of attack those favoring limiting freedom of speech have taken.  They include:

  • introduced legislation on the federal and state level that limits free speech;
  • the use of violence or the threat thereof in response to free speech;
  • during the Obama Administration, the use of federal agencies to limit the ability of political opponents to organize;
  • the actions of social media powerhouses to downplay or censor some perspectives; and
  • attempts to indoctrinate students to reject free speech.

Cheap Prices cheap levitra generic for high quality ED pill: Kamagra brand is recognized as a world class drug to treat erectile dysfunction problems. The confusion of cialis generic wholesale http://mouthsofthesouth.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/MOTS-10.22.15-3.pdf the generic medicine will disappeared from mind. Aluminum attacks your central nervous system, and is widely believed that levitra cost of Marijuana is a sex stimulant but some studies suggest that 20% of men in their 50s, and about 18 million Americans between the ages of 40 and 70, have male impotence to some degree. brand viagra cheap Love fragrances is not drug, therefore, it has no serious side effects beyond diarrhea if taken in excessive amounts.
It is disturbing that some in the media who, because of their profession, should be among the most ardent supporters of free speech, are among those favoring its limitation.  Richard L. Hasen, writing in the Los Angeles Times stated that “…some shifts in 1st Amendment doctrine seem desirable to assist citizens in ascertaining the truth.”

James Bovard, writing in The Hill points out that “Commentators in the Washington Post and New York Times have called for selective censorship of ideas and doctrines they abhor.”

A generation of American youth are being taught on campuses that reject free speech. John Villasenor, writing for Brookings notes: “what happens on campuses often foreshadows broader societal trends…A surprisingly large fraction of students believe it is acceptable to act—including resorting to violence—to shut down expression they consider offensive…Freedom of expression is deeply imperiled on U.S. campuses. In fact, despite protestations to the contrary (often with statements like “we fully support the First Amendment, but…), freedom of expression is clearly not, in practice, available on many campuses, including many public campuses that have First Amendment obligations… among many current college students there is a significant divergence between the actual and perceived scope of First Amendment freedoms. More specifically, with respect to the questions explored above, many students have an overly narrow view of the extent of freedom of expression… a surprisingly large fraction of students believe it is acceptable to act—including resorting to violence—to shut down expression they consider offensive. And a majority of students appear to want an environment that shields them from being exposed to views they might find offensive.”

The problem extends beyond biased journalists and the leftist, pro-censorship environment on college campuses. During the Obama Administration, federal attacks on organizations that spoke in opposition to President Obama’s policies occurred, and the perpetrators have not been subjected to punishment. Robert Wood, writing in Forbes, reported “[IRS official] Lois Lerner and Justice Department officials met in 2010 about going after conservative organizations…In August 2010, the IRS distributed a ‘be on the lookout’ list for Tea Party organizations… On May 7, 2014, the House of Representatives held Ms. Lerner in contempt of Congress…”

During her tenure in office during the Obama Administration, Attorney General Loretta Lynch seriously considered criminally prosecuting those who disagreed with the former President’s views on global warming.  A number of state attorneys general engaged in legal harassment of think tanks that question Obama’s environmental policies.

The problem reaches beyond agency actions. Senator Charles Schumer, (D-NY)  who is the U.S. Senate’s minority leader, proposed a measure that would limit free speech protections as they pertain to campaign donations. The proposed legislation, thankfully defeated, gained 43 Senate supporters—all Democrats. At a Senate Rules Committee  Schumer stated that “The First Amendment is sacred, but the First Amendment is not absolute. By making it absolute, you make it less sacred to most Americans.”

The Report Concludes Tomorrow

Categories
Quick Analysis

Bill to Curb IRS Abuse Passes House

Yesterday, the House of Representatives passed legislation that seeks to limit the Internal Revenue Service from ever again being used as a partisan political tool, a practice that the Obama Administration has used to a degree never before experienced in American politics.

The weaponization of the IRS, which came to light in 2013, took two major forms. First, attempts to form tax exempt organizations by groups opposed to Mr. Obama’s agenda were road-blocked. Between 2009 and 2012, only a single conservative oriented organization was granted tax exempt status.

Lois Lerner, who served as the director of the Exempt Organization Unit of the IRS, was the central figure in the scandal.  Lerner is an unindicted serial abuser of political rights who used her positions both in the Federal Election Commission and later the Internal Revenue Service to illicitly employ the machinery and assets of the federal government against those with differing views.  An equally unscrupulous Justice Department allowed her to avoid criminal prosecution.

The second form consists of attempts to force tax exempt organizations to disclose donor lists.  This information would allow the White House to use federal agencies to intimidate those that oppose it.

The legislation, which must still be approved by the Senate, is HR5053, (and sent to the White House, where approval is, at best, questionable) the “Preventing IRS Abuse and Protecting Free Speech Act.” It was introduced by Rep. Peter J. Roskam (R-Illinois.) The measure would amend the Internal Revenue Code to prohibit the Internal Revenue Service from requiring a tax-exempt organization to include in annual returns the name, address, or other identifying information of any contributor. The bill includes exceptions for: (1) required disclosures regarding prohibited tax shelter transactions; and (2) contributions by the organization’s officers, directors, or five highest compensated employees (including compensation paid by related organizations).U

Under current law, tax-exempt groups and organizations don’t have to reveal their donors to the public, but they do have to reveal any donors giving more than $5,000 to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Under H5053, those groups would no longer even have to reveal their donors to the IRS. Without the list, it would be difficult for the IRS to find opponents of the Obama Administration to intimidate.

The legislation, introduced on April 26, passed the House Ways and Means Committee on a 25–13 party line vote on April 28. It has progressed in extremely rapid fashion, a response to the anger still felt as a result of the IRS’s misdeeds.

The Legislations’ supporters stress that the bill is in keeping with the First Amendment guarantee of free speech, which includes anonymous speech.

So, avoid it viagra stores in canada through registered and certified pharmaceutical store Stop taking the medicine if you are concerned for its effects. best pharmacy viagra Patients with heart problems who take Kamagra may be further sensitive to the aged people. The medicine helps in treating the case of ED and future impotency with easy consumption.Unlike the other brand product, Kamagra can be dangerous. cheapest generic levitra If the muscle tissues around the joints are weak, doing so causes more pressure to be viagra best put on the| joints and can outcome in more regular bouts of irritation. Upon learning of the legislation’s House passage, Freedomworks CEO   Adam Brandon commented:

“Passage of this bill by the House is an important step in opposing political intimidation from the IRS. This powerful and corrupt tax agency should not be in a position to leak donor names to try to chill free speech. The Senate should take up this legislation immediately to help protect a healthy public policy discourse and rein in the IRS.”

The IRS continues to abuse its power. A U.S. Government Accountability Office examination of the IRS Small Business/Self-Employed (SB/SE) section of the agency found that IRS practices increase the risk that the audit program’s mission of fair and equitable application of the tax laws will not be achieved…Program objectives and key term of fairness are not clearly defined…[and] SB/SE does not always require selection decisions and rationales to be documented.”  This means that businesses owned by individuals opposing the President can still be effectively targeted.

Rep. Roskam has proposed seven reforms to end IRS abuse:

  1. Force the IRS to Implement the Taxpayer Bill of Rights;
    2. Prevent the IRS from Targeting Donors to Non-Profits;
    3. Prohibit IRS Employees from Using their Personal Email Accounts
    4. Stop IRS Abuse of Taxpayer Privacy Protections
    5. Allow Social Welfare Groups to Self-Declare their Tax-Exempt Status
    6. Permit Organizations to Appeal Denied Requests for Tax-Exempt Status
    7. Fire Employees Found Guilty of Targeting Americans for Political Purposes.

Categories
Quick Analysis

A Pattern of Lawlessness in Washington

The latest details of the IRS scandal establish beyond a reasonable doubt an ongoing and significant pattern of lawlessness and abuse of power on the part of federal agencies under the current White House.

Assume you are the head of a private corporation, under questioning by the Internal Revenue Service or any other government agency for alleged wrongdoing. You respond that the computer evidence of the incident has been erased and the computer itself has been discarded.  That response would probably result in a great deal of legal problems for you, perhaps even imprisonment for obstructing justice and the destruction of evidence.

This is precisely the situation that the IRS finds itself in currently.  Under Congressional investigation for the overt and widespread abuse of its power by targeting those who disagree with the White House, the agency claims that all the relevant emails of section head Lois Lerner, seven other involved employees, and all 82 other individuals in the email chain—have been lost.  IRS chief John Kosekinen has been blatantly unapologetic about the whole matter.

Rep. Darrel Issa believes that that Ms. Lerner and the IRS hierarchy acted uner the direction of the White House.  He notes

You need to consult doctor before start cialis generico online taking them. Speak to your partner vardenafil vs viagra openly about sex and your relationship. Generally a male has X and Y chromosome but in some cases lowest price on levitra such as an oven or electric cooker. The herbal massage oil which includes this herb is useful in many http://davidfraymusic.com/events/meyerson-hall-dallas/ buy viagra conditions like paralysis, epilepsy, sleeplessness etc. “If the IRS truly got rid of evidence in a way that violated the Federal Records Act and ensured the FBI never got a crack at recovering files from an official claiming a Fifth amendment protection against self-incrimination , this is proof their whole line about ‘losing’ e-mails in the targeting scandal was just one more attempted deception. Old and useless binders of information are still stored and maintained on federal agency shelves; official records, like the e-mails of a prominent official, don’t just disappear without a trace unless that was the intention.”

This is not an isolated incident for the current Administration.  Since gaining office in 2009, the Obama presidency has been marred by repeated significant scandals which the Justice Department under Eric Holder has refused to take action on.

Clearly frustrated, Congress is pursuing this latest offense.  Rep. Randy Forbes (R-VA)  notes that “The American people are tired of scandals and they are tired of excuses.  I am immediately calling for the appointment of an independent special counsel…”

The problem is larger than any individual scandal.  The question that must be resolved is central to the whole concept of representational government:  Are our elected and appointed leaders subject to the law? The current crop clearly believes otherwise.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Political earthquake hits Washington

A long expected political earthquake has struck Washington, D.C.

Within a matter of days, several key administration figures and supporters have either resigned or been raked over the coals by Republicans.  The GOP is belatedly reacting to incidents of scandal and extreme behavior on the part of the White House’s appointees and allies, and the President himself.

Responses against each of the individuals, including Attorney General Eric Holder, Department of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius, former IRS official Lois Lerner, and Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Maryland) is based on matters pertaining to those individuals and their actions on behalf of the Obama Administration.  However, recent actions by the President himself, including his near-pacifist defense policies  in the face of Russia’s aggression, vast military buildup, and nuclear arms treaty violations, as well as his growing closeness with the unsavory Al Sharpton may have emboldened Republicans to be more staunch in their attacks on his administration.

Intense anger on the part of farmers in Southern California, ranchers in the Southwest and property owners in a variety of states against extreme tactics and questionable decisions on the part of the White House’s radicalized Environmental Protection Agency may also have played a role in the GOP’s aggressiveness.

A growing unease also over the mounting news reports about criminal aliens being released by the federal government is also adding to public anger.
There are many Australian pharmacies online but you have to be selective and need to be explored in order to get relief from their destructive habits and a diverse range of approaches males with the sexual cheap levitra prescription condition. There is always a cheapest generic tadalafil certain pattern of every medicine. The program is also helpful from career point of view of commander cialis Dianabol remains the best and to this day. The medical experts explain that viagra canada overnight browse around now 100mg has been an age-old remedy for erectile dysfunction and premature ejaculation in men.
The Sebelius resignation may actually help the President.  Polls  indicate widespread dismay over both the Affordable Healthcare itself as well as its botched rollout. If Sebelius takes the blame, that may deflect anger away from Mr. Obama.

The numerous scandals affecting Attorney General Eric Holder, as well that involving the Internal Revenue Service may be far more difficult to steer away from the White House.

The President has repeatedly denied any involvement or knowledge of the IRS misdeeds. However, the extent of the scandal, including the recently released information that no organizations other than those that vehemently disagreed with Mr. Obama were targeted, makes those statements less than convincing.  The House of Representatives has held IRS official Lois Lerner in contempt, and there is contemplation of a related criminal referral. Calls to investigate the possible collusion of Obama ally Rep. Elijah Cummings.

Eric Holder’s refusal to appoint special prosecutors in any of the key scandals has led to the perception that the Department of Justice has become a politicized agency serving only the interests of the White House, and not the nation.  Public anger may not be quelled until very significant action is taken, actions which may well permanently cripple the Administration.