Saturday, 29 June 2013

THE LIE-RS SCANDAL: WHERE'S THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR?

Ken Berwitz

Why is there not a special prosecutor investigating the Lie-RS scandal?  Can anyone seriously believe this administration is capable of investigating itself?

Well, the Chicago Tribune doesn't think so.  And, belated though its demand for such a prosecutor is, the Trib is a lot faster than just about any other media venue....which should tell you plenty about why I use the term "Accomplice Media" so often in this blog.

A few excerpts from yesterday's editorial:

From May 2010 to May 2012, the IRS had flagged for added scrutiny six of the 20 applicant groups with words such as "progressive" in their titles. "In comparison, our audit found that 100 percent of the (292) tax-exempt applications with Tea Party, Patriots or 9/12 in their names were processed as potential political cases" - that is, groups possibly too political to merit tax-exempt status. "While we have multiple sources of information corroborating the use of tea party and other related criteria," wrote Inspector General J. Russell George, "including employee interviews, emails and other documents, we found no indication in any of these other materials that 'progressives' was a term used to refer cases for scrutiny for political-campaign intervention."

Translation: The IRS was overwhelmingly one-sided in scrutinizing applications. And the agency evidently was completely one-sided in subjecting only conservative groups to long processing delays and lengthy, often peculiar requests. Example: The IRS asked an Iowa anti-abortion group "how all of your activities, including the prayer meetings held outside of Planned Parenthood, are considered educational as defined under 501(c)(3) ...."

. Did someone nudge IRS employees to hassle certain groups or did agency officials spontaneously decide to do that?

. Inspector General George has testified that in June 2012, five months before the election, he told top Treasury Department officials of his probe into IRS targeting. Did his news, with its potential to rock the presidential campaign, stop atop Treasury - or did it make its way even higher in the administration?

. At multiple points in 2012, why did top IRS officials repeatedly mislead Congress by not disclosing - in response to highly specific questions - that the agency was targeting conservative groups?

We can only speculate on which tools will unlock the grimy secrets of this egregious misuse of government authority. An ongoing self-examination by the IRS is laughably untrustworthy. The U.S. Department of Justice also is on the case.

Why hasn't Attorney General Eric Holder appointed a special prosecutor? The White House, too, should be clamoring for one: The feds are only three months from enrolling Americans in Obamacare, a program that relies on citizens' willingness to have the IRS even more involved in the financial details of their lives.

Amen.  And double amen.

To answer the question of why eric holder has yet to appoint a special prosecutor:  there is exactly one reason I can think of:  because he does not want a special prosecutor to find, and report, the truth about this sordid cesspool.  Can you come up with another one?  If so, I'd love to know what it is.

So congratulations to the Chicago Tribune.  Now: where are the rest of our wonderful "neutral" media?  When do they finally exit in the tank they have been in for Barack Obama these past 4 1/2 years, towel off, and become real journalists again?

Ever?


THE LIE-RS SCANDAL: WHERE'S THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR?

Ken Berwitz

Why is there not a special prosecutor investigating the Lie-RS scandal?  Can anyone seriously believe this administration is capable of investigating itself?

Well, the Chicago Tribune doesn't think so.  And, belated though its demand for such a prosecutor is, the Trib is a lot faster than just about any other media venue....which should tell you plenty about why I use the term "Accomplice Media" so often in this blog.

A few excerpts from yesterday's editorial:

From May 2010 to May 2012, the IRS had flagged for added scrutiny six of the 20 applicant groups with words such as "progressive" in their titles. "In comparison, our audit found that 100 percent of the (292) tax-exempt applications with Tea Party, Patriots or 9/12 in their names were processed as potential political cases" - that is, groups possibly too political to merit tax-exempt status. "While we have multiple sources of information corroborating the use of tea party and other related criteria," wrote Inspector General J. Russell George, "including employee interviews, emails and other documents, we found no indication in any of these other materials that 'progressives' was a term used to refer cases for scrutiny for political-campaign intervention."

Translation: The IRS was overwhelmingly one-sided in scrutinizing applications. And the agency evidently was completely one-sided in subjecting only conservative groups to long processing delays and lengthy, often peculiar requests. Example: The IRS asked an Iowa anti-abortion group "how all of your activities, including the prayer meetings held outside of Planned Parenthood, are considered educational as defined under 501(c)(3) ...."

. Did someone nudge IRS employees to hassle certain groups or did agency officials spontaneously decide to do that?

. Inspector General George has testified that in June 2012, five months before the election, he told top Treasury Department officials of his probe into IRS targeting. Did his news, with its potential to rock the presidential campaign, stop atop Treasury - or did it make its way even higher in the administration?

. At multiple points in 2012, why did top IRS officials repeatedly mislead Congress by not disclosing - in response to highly specific questions - that the agency was targeting conservative groups?

We can only speculate on which tools will unlock the grimy secrets of this egregious misuse of government authority. An ongoing self-examination by the IRS is laughably untrustworthy. The U.S. Department of Justice also is on the case.

Why hasn't Attorney General Eric Holder appointed a special prosecutor? The White House, too, should be clamoring for one: The feds are only three months from enrolling Americans in Obamacare, a program that relies on citizens' willingness to have the IRS even more involved in the financial details of their lives.

Amen.  And double amen.

To answer the question of why eric holder has yet to appoint a special prosecutor:  there is exactly one reason I can think of:  because he does not want a special prosecutor to find, and report, the truth about this sordid cesspool.  Can you come up with another one?  If so, I'd love to know what it is.

So congratulations to the Chicago Tribune.  Now: where are the rest of our wonderful "neutral" media?  When do they finally exit in the tank they have been in for Barack Obama these past 4 1/2 years, towel off, and become real journalists again?

Ever?


BLOG GAP Ken Berwitz


There's plenty to blog about, but we're spending the day with our children and.grandchildren

I promise to catch up later on.


REAL RACISM (CONT.) THE ELEVATION OF RACHEL JEANTEL

Ken Berwitz

As I have pointed out many times in this blog, real racism takes many different forms. 

Our latest example is the patently ridiculous, racially offensive, elevation of Zimmerman trial witness Rachel Jeantel, by certain so-called "journalists".

Let's start with what I consider an obvious fact:  Rachel Jeantel was a pathetic embarrassment on the witness stand.  She started as a proven liar, by her own admission, in sworn pre-trial depositions - which, if media hadn't already turned this into a racially charged circus, would have ended her usefulness to the prosecution right there. 

But, in addition, she was sullen, insolent, offensive (e.g. telling the defense lawyer his question was "retarded"), dishonest beyond her initial lies (she testified that the voice she heard on the phone was that of Trayvon Martin but, when challenged, immediately admitted she didn't know whose voice it was), and quite possibly functionally illiterate (not only did she not write "her" letter to the Martin family, but she could not even read it - "I don't read cursive").  

Add in her physical appearance, and what you had was nothing short of a KKKer's wet dream. 

So how do the racial apologists deal with this?  The answer, for at least three "journalists", is that Rachel Jeantel wasn't a bad witness at all, it's just that White people are deficient. 

Huh?  Wha?  They couldn't have said that, could they? 

Well, yes, they did.  Let me show you.

Here, we have Christina Coleman's article for globalgrind.com, which offered these brilliant insights:

If ever I thought myself objective and unbiased, the George Zimmerman trial is definitely not that moment.

So let's cut to the chase. Any attorney, jury member, judge or white person in that courtroom is not going to understand Rachel Jeantel. And I don't expect them to.

In fact, I certainly, like my fellow writer Rachel Samara, understand why white people wouldn't like Rachel.

She's hard. She's black. And your assumptions about her background and lack of education make you feel like you are better, somehow. That her testimony, no matter how powerful and impactful it may be to this trial, is implausible. Weak, maybe? Let's impeach her. 

But maybe the reason white people don't understand Rachel Jeantel has something more to do with white privilege then, what they would call, Rachel's capricious nature. 

Let's for one second try to understand why Rachel is "angry" (read emotional), "hood" (read blunt), and "unintelligent" (read multilingual). 

The thing is, what white people see in Rachel has little to do about her own issues, and more to say about the America that white people are blind to.

Got that?  All White people are privileged, therefore the entire race is incapable of understanding Black people.  (NOTE:  don't expect to read anything about Black people not understanding White people, however, because it is not there.  In Christina Coleman's mind, the White Race, a s whole, has this deficiency but the Black race, as a whole, does not).

Then we have this, from the Rachel Samara article she referenced (and linked) above:

Rachel was raw, emotional, aggressive and hostile, and she was unapologetically herself.

And if the 5 white jurors (excluding the 1 Latina) are like most white people I know, they are unfortunately not going to like Rachel. They won't understand her, especially not her defensive nature, and this will unfortunately work against her. Even though it shouldn't.

Again we find that the problem is not Rachel Jeantel's abysmal performance on the stand, or her lies, or any of that, it is that White people are not perceptive enough to understand her.

And in case you think it is restricted exclusively to writers at this one web site, we have the following tweet from Fox News's Geraldo Rivera:

    1. 28 Jun
    2. Rachel Jeantel was a sincere credible witness to me but probably not so much to the five white ladies on Zimmerman jury Hope she fares well.

These are just three examples.  I'll cut off here - but, believe me, there are plenty more.

At this point you might be asking something like "Do these people really think they can generalize about all White people?  They have to realize that what they are doing is not one bit different from White racists stereotyping  Black people, right?

My answer is, you would think they would see their own racism here.  But evidently they do not.

Real racism.  It comes in all forms, from all sources.  No group is immune to it, or from it.  Certainly not so-called "journalists" who are happy to engage in racial stereotypes to explain away a disastrous Black witness in a high-visibility trial.


Buy Our Book Here!


Return to Current Blog
We're Hopelessly Partisan

hopelesslypartisan.com, is a web site which is dedicated to honest, blunt, debate on the issues of our time.


About Us



Privacy Notice: In conjunction with the ads on this site, third parties may be placing and reading cookies on your browser, or using web beacons to collect information.


At “Hopelessly Partisan” we discuss all issues, big and small. In here, nothing is sacred and nothing is out of bounds.

So settle back, preferably after laughing your way through a copy of “The Hopelessly Partisan Guide To American Politics”, and let the battle begin. In this blog, your opinion counts every bit as much as anyone else's, maybe even more.

And to show that my willingness to provide all sides of the issues is sincere, here are links to a variety of web sites, from the left, the middle (more or less) and the right. Read them and either smile in agreement or gnash your teeth in anger!!