|
nChrist
|
 |
« on: December 29, 2013, 02:50:19 AM » |
|
________________________________________
The Patriot Post Friday Digest 12-13-2013
From The Federalist Patriot
Free Email Subscription
________________________________________
THE FOUNDATION
“The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.” –Thomas Jefferson
GOVERNMENT & POLITICS
IRS: The Left’s Weapon of Choice
Here’s a question: When did it become acceptable for the IRS to be used as a tool to target enemies of the president? Moreover, what article or amendment of the U.S. Constitution authorizes a component of the Executive Branch to be used as a powerful political weapon? The answers to these questions should be obvious to most: “never” and “none,” respectively. But apparently that’s not so for Barack Obama.
Fresh from wiping mud off its face for its scandalous behavior in targeting the Left’s political enemies1, the IRS is proposing new rules that double-down on that egregious behavior. The new rules would restrain the free-speech rights of certain organizations under Section 501©(4) of the Internal Revenue Code by preventing them from posting officeholder votes and quotes on their websites within two months of an election. These organizations are politically active nonprofits and exist specifically to promote political speech and issue advocacy. (And with the Senate “going nuclear” and allowing Obama to pack the courts – especially the DC Circuit – with leftists, the courts will surely uphold these new rules.)
These organizations are not tax exempt, but they have for more than 50 years enjoyed the ability to engage in political activity on behalf of donors who wish to remain anonymous. Now that conservative nonprofits have grown at such a rate that they threaten formerly Democrat strongholds, naturally the Entitled Party wants to quash such activity, either by restricting these groups' rights through unconstitutional rule-making measures or by exposing and harassing conservative donors.
For his part, Obama didn’t even pass the first philosophical hurdle – that using the IRS as a political weapon is, well, “wrong.” In a recent interview with Chris “I-felt-this-thrill-going-up-my-leg” Matthews, Obama stated, “You’ve got an … IRS office … and they’ve got a list, and suddenly everybody’s outraged” – as though being outraged is somehow itself offensive. Well, yes, Mr. President: “Suddenly” – once the despicable act is discovered, that is – everybody is outraged. A better question might be, “Why wouldn’t they be?”
As to the original questions concerning the use of the IRS as a political weapon, we would refer readers to the “IRS” acronym itself for answers: Internal Revenue Service – “Internal,” meaning from within the country itself; “Revenue,” meaning federal government income from taxes; and “Service,” meaning an organization that (ostensibly, at least) helps people. Note that none of these terms state or imply an organization that regulates politics or free speech rights. The best solution to this mess is to disengage the IRS from the business of doing political work on behalf of the president and his party. But that solution will never be acceptable to the Left, which knows that it must rely on deceit and unfair tactics to hold power. Sadly, this is simply another thinly veiled attack on Americans' liberty.
Ryan-Murray Budget Passes House
The House passed the Ryan-Murray budget compromise2 Thursday night by a vote of 332-94. Republicans approved 169-62. (Here’s the roll call3). In the Senate, Republican opposition to the bill is growing, with the main objection being that it undoes the sequester for the next two years in exchange for down-the-road savings. But as Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK) argued, “You can’t spend your time making perfect the enemy of the good.” Meanwhile, Nancy Pelosi told her caucus to “embrace the suck”4 and vote for the bill – 163 of them did.
ECONOMY, REGS & TAXES
‘Clean Air’ Regulation Before High Court
For years, New York City insisted it did not have a pollution problem; the problem was the bad air coming in from New Jersey. But there is a federal remedy for just about every perceived wrong, and, in this case, it’s the EPA and the “good neighbor” provision of the Clean Air Act to the rescue. The provision supposedly gives the EPA power to oversee remedies when alleged pollution in one state blows into a neighboring state. A state that significantly contributes to another state’s failure to meet federal standards can be required to limit emissions by a commensurate amount.
Under the Clean Air Act, the regulation of air pollution was the primary responsibility of states and municipalities. The EPA’s 2011 cross-state pollution rule, however, allowed the EPA to issue implementation plans immediately, instead of waiting for the states to develop their own. The EPA also promulgated a one-size-fits-all standard that doesn’t recognize an individual state’s contribution to downwind pollution.
More than a dozen states are now challenging these EPA mandates in Environmental Protection Agency v. EME Homer City Generation. In a 2-1 ruling, the DC Court of Appeals struck down the EPA rule in 2012, holding that the Clean Air Act “did not authorize EPA to simply adopt limits on emissions as EPA deemed reasonable.” The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments Tuesday.
The EPA rule was intended to implement the Obama administration’s anti-carbon agenda, so, naturally, Democrats decried the Court of Appeals' decision – more so because a Bush appointee wrote the majority opinion. But it’s telling that the DC Circuit also denied en banc review (i.e., review by the entire bench). So we’re off to see the Supremes, who should note that not only does the EPA rule violate principles of federalism, but also that the DC Circuit rarely overturns EPA rules, showing how extreme were the rules being reviewed. But if arguments were any indication, the Supreme Court may grant “a healthy amount of discretion” to the EPA. That’s bad news.
NATIONAL SECURITY
Bad and Bizarre in Syria
The civil war in Syria took a strange turn this week as General Salim Idriss, leader of the Western-backed Free Syrian Army (FSA), reportedly fled for Qatar. Or maybe it was Turkey. Or, actually, Idriss later claimed he didn’t flee at all but had left the country before the Islamic Front took over his headquarters. Only the Islamic Front was supposedly helping the general. The FSA is the focus of Western efforts to arm, train and support some semblance of moderate resistance to Bashar al-Assad’s murderous regime. But as you can see from this bizarre telling of events, it’s difficult to distinguish between groups and to tell what’s actually happening in Syria.
Over the last year, so-called moderates have been losing ground to al-Qaida and its ilk, and anti-Assad forces have become ever-more dominated by radical Islamists. Those jihadis now hold most of the northern Syria territory under rebel control, and have seized numerous stores of weapons and supplies belonging to the moderates. In other words, the West has ended up supplying the Islamists because they’re inseparable from any “moderates.” The Obama administration still says it plans to attend the Geneva peace talks in January and may, in fact, decide to support Islamist groups – provided their not allied with al-Qaida. (No, we’re not kidding7.)
Some may argue that the U.S. was too slow and insufficient in arming moderate rebels, and that this delay allowed jihadis to overrun the opposition. It’s more likely, however, that this was only a matter of time. The “Arab Spring” has turned out to be nothing but a Middle East-wide radical Islamist uprising, replacing lousy, murderous, secular leaders with fanatical Muslims. Pick your poison. |
