Tyranny often sounds wonderful when it is described by the tyrants. – ADB
National Science Foundation study focuses on internet memes, ‘misinformation’ in political campaigns.
BY: Elizabeth Harrington
August 25, 2014 3:30 pm
The federal government is spending nearly $1 million to create an online database that will track “misinformation” and hate speech on Twitter.
The National Science Foundation is financing the creation of a web service that will monitor “suspicious memes” and what it considers “false and misleading ideas,” with a major focus on political activity online.
Remember when Barack Obama promised his administration would be the most transparent in history? Sadly, this has not been the case. In reality it has been just the oppisite. Finally journalists other than Fox News are speaking out about the secrecy and outright censorship of the Obama regime.
On July 8th the Society of Professional Journalists sent a letter to President Obama calling him out on the lack of transparency of his administration. It was signed by four members of SPJ including David Cuillier its president, as well as thirty five others in the field of journalism. While this letter may be an example of too little to late, it just might be an indication of the growing frustration with this president by those who were once his most rabid supporters. Me thinks the Pied Piper is out of tune!
You may read the full letter here: http://www.spj.org/news.asp?ref=1253
SPJ in the news: White House letter reaches its destination and then some [updated]
Related video – Obama: “This Is The Most Transparent Administration In History”
‘I was cautioning folks about email and how we have several occasions where Congress has asked for emails … we need to be cautious about what we say in emails’
The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee today released new e-mails at a hearing with IRS Commissioner John Koskinen showing former Internal Revenue Service (IRS) official Lois Lerner leading an IRS effort to hide information from Congressional inquiries.
From the April 9, 2013, email exchange among Lerner, an IRS technology employee (Maria Hooke), and the agency’s Director for Exempt Organizations Exam Unit Manager Nanette Downing who led audits:
I had a question today about OCS [Microsoft Office Communications Server]. I was cautioning folks about email and how we have several occasions where Congress has asked for emails and there has been an electronic search for responsive emails – so we need to be cautious about what we say in emails. Someone asked if OCS conversations were also searchable – I don’t know, but told them I would get back to them. Do you know?
Read more including the actual email message at: allenwestrepublic.com.
Conservative author and commentator Dinesh D’souza has a new film, AMERICA Imagine the World Without Her, opening nationwide on July 2nd. D’Souza is best known for his blockbuster documentary, 2016: Obama’s America which premiered in 2012. AMERICA will be showing in Gainesville at Regal Cinemas 14 in Butler Plaza.
Scroll down to watch the trailers.
Click HERE to go to the America the movie website for more info and theaters nationwide.
(My transcript is below video)
Congressman Trey Gowdy outdid himself while questioning IRS Commissioner John Koskinen during Monday night’s House Committee on Oversight and Reform hearing. Below is my transcript:
Gowdy: “Well, I’m going to help you with it. Spoliation of the evidence is when a party fails to preserve evidence There’s a negative inference that the jury can draw, from their failure to preserve the evidence. You with me? If you destroy documents, the jury can infer that those documents weren’t going to be good for you. If you fail to keep documents, the jury can infer that those documents were not going to be good for you. You’ve heard the phrase spoliation of evidence haven’t you?
Koskinen: “No, I can’t recall ever hearing that.”
Gowdy: “It’s true in administrative hearings, civil hearings, criminal hearings.”
Koskinen: “I practiced law once 45 years ago, gave it up for Lent one year, never went back.”
Gowdy: “Well let me tell you what you would have found had you stuck with it. When a party has a duty to preserve evidence or records, and they fail to do so, there is a negative inference that is drawn from their failure to preserve the evidence. It’s common sense, right? If you destroy something, the jury has a right to infer that whatever you destroyed would not have been good for you. Or else every litigant would destroy whatever evidence was detrimental to them. Agreed?”
Koskinen: “I’m not sure. I think if you destroy the evidence and people could prove it, it wouldn’t be a good thing for your defense.”
Gowdy: “Well, no it’s worse than that the jury can draw and they’re instructed, they can draw a negative inference.”
Gowdy: If a taxpayer is being sued by the IRS administratively, civilly or prosecuted criminally, and they fail to keep documents, the jury can draw a negative inference from the fact that they didn’t keep receipts or emails or documents. So if it’s true and applies to a taxpayer, it ought to apply to the IRS as well. Agree?
Koskinen: “Is this a trial? Is this a jury? Is that what you’re…”
Gowdy: “I say administrative, civil or criminal. I say if you want to, if you want to go down that road, I’m happy to go down there with you. In fact I’m glad you mentioned it. You’ve already said multiple times today that there was no evidence you found of any criminal wrongdoing. I want you to tell me what criminal statutes you’ve evaluated.”
Koskinen: “I’ve not looked at any statutes.”
Gowdy: Well then how can you possibly tell our fellow citizens there’s no criminal wrongdoing, if you don’t even know what statute to look at?”
Koskinen: “Because I see no evidence that anybody consciously…”
Gowdy: “But how would you know what elements of the crime existed? You don’t even know what statutes are in play. I’m going to ask you again: What statutes have you evaluated?”
Koskinen: “Uh, I think you can rely on common sense. Nothing I have seen…”
Gowdy: “Common sense. Instead of the criminal code, you want to rely on common sense, no Mr. Koskinen, you can shake your head all you want to Commissioner, you have said today, that there is no evidence of criminal wrongdoing. And I’m asking you what criminal statute you have reviewed to reach that conclusion?”
Koskinen: “I’ve reviewed no criminal statute.”
Gowdy: Alright, so you don’t have any idea whether there’s any criminal conduct or not, because you don’t know the elements of the offense.”
Koskinen: “I’ve seen no evidence of wrongdoing.”
Gowdy: “Oh well, that’s very different than no evidence of criminal misconduct Commissioner.”
Koskinen: “It seems to me that if you haven’t done wrongdoing, It would be pretty hard to (stutter) argue that you had some criminal violation if you didn’t…”
Gowdy: “Well what did Lois Lerner mean when she said that ‘perhaps the FEC will save the day’?”
Koskinen: “I have no idea.”
Gowdy: “What did she mean when she said that ‘we need a project but we need to be careful that it doesn’t appear to be per se political’? You don’t think that’s a potential violation of 18242”?
Koskinen: “I have no idea if.”
Gowdy” “Because you haven’t looked at 18242. You don’t have any idea, Commissioner. You don’t have any idea whether there’s any criminal wrongdoing, or not.”
Koskinen: “With regard to the production of the evidence, the production of Lois Lerner’s emails, I have seen no evidence of wrongdoing. What else, what else…”
Gowdy: “If there were, that would be a separate criminal offense.”
Koskinen: “What else went on with Lois lerner, I’ve said in the past…”
Gowdy: “So what you’re saying is that you don’t have any idea whether she engaged in criminal wrongdoing, you’re just saying that you did not engage in any with respect to the emails.”
Koskinen: “I haven’t seen any wrongdoing with regard to the production of Lois Lerner’s emails.”
Gowdy: “You are not saying there was no criminal wrongdoing with respect to the targeting of conservative groups. I want to be very clear, you’re not saying that.”
Koskinen: “Made no judgments.”
Gowdy: So you disagree with the President when he says that there’s not a smidgen of corruption.”
Koskinen: “There are people who have been making judgments both sides about whether there were…”
Gowdy: “And you know what? I’m not one of those. I’m just simply saying we will never know because you didn’t keep the evidence. The evidence was spoliated. And whether it was negligent, whether it was intentional, whether it’s reckless, we still don’t have the evidence, Commissioner.”
Koskinen: “Well you have the evidence that there is no emails from the White House, You have the Treasury emails, so the basic premise that this was an argument in a conspiracy driven by the White House…”
Gowdy: “No sir, you’re wrong about that. You’re wrong about that. That you’re repeating a talking point from our colleagues on the other side that we’re obsessed with the White House. It was Jay Carney who perpetuated the myth that it was rogue agents in Ohio. It wasn’t any of us. Was that accurate? Was that first initial line of defense that this is just two rogue agents in Ohio? Was that accurate Commissioner?”
Koskinen: “Not that I know of.”
Gowdy: “Alright, so that wasn’t accurate and that came from the White House. Who said there’s not a smidgeon of corruption? Who said that, Commissioner?”
Koskinen: “Uh, my understanding it was the President.
Gowdy: “Uh it was the President. So that was Jay Carney and the President both inserting themselves into the IRS scandal. And you want to blame us for bringing the White House into it?
Koskinen: “I haven’t blamed you at all I…”
Gowdy: “You just did, Commissioner, ya’ just did.”
Koskinen: “It’s a good argument, all I said was the White House has revealed there were no Lois Lerner emails, Treasury has given you all of their emails and to the extent that uh the argument was that Lois Lerner was conspiring and emailing back and forth, thus far I haven’t seen any emails…”
Gowdy: “You can be engaged in a conspiracy that doesn’t include the White House.
Unknown voice: “Gentleman, time’s up.”
I have been a Washington Redskins fan for more years than I care to remember although I thank God every day that I still have the mental capacity to do so. Therefore, one might say that I’m biased and that I can’t speak objectively on this topic – NOT TRUE. These heavy handed and so-called politically correct attempts to get the ‘Skins to change their team name have nothing to do with football, but rather they are an example of an out of control government once again putting its boot on the throats of We the People. And like the obstinate and spoiled child that it is, the more it gets away with, the more it attempts. And the more it attempts, the more it gets away with – ADB
RedState.com: The Washington Redskins have had their trademark yanked by the US Patent and Trademark Office because white liberals who feel guilty about their privilege were offended.
That is the actual fact. Most American Indians . . . errrr . . . Native Americans could care less. In fact, on Indian Reservations around the country there are kids’ sports teams called the Redskins.
The logo itself had the collaboration of Indians at its conception.
What is really going on here is that a bunch of overeducated white guys who cry during Love Actually feel they have too much privilege and are thus guilty. So they have gone out and found things to be offended about on behalf of others less privileged than themselves. Continue reading at redstate.com.
Six former members of Bowe Bergdahl’s platoon came together for the first time on Wednesday to speak out. They appeared on Megyn Kelly’s The Kelly File on Fox News and discussed whether they thought Bergdahl served with honor and “distinction.”
The Washington Redskins took on Democrats in the U.S. Senate on Friday, telling Majority Leader Harry Reid that his efforts to orchestrate a campaign to force a team name change were misguided and failed to recognize the name’s “deep and personal meaning.”
“I hope you will attend one of our home games, where you would witness first-hand that the Washington Redskins are a positive, unifying force for our community in a city and region that is divided on so many levels,” team President Bruce Allen wrote Mr. Reid Read more at: washingtontimes.com.
Click here to view Allen‘s letter to Reid (pdf)
Aah… An interesting look into the future – Fifty years from now.
Today, in the year 2064, as we look back over the last 50 years, it might seem as if the Abundance Revolution was inevitable, since so much wealth was involved. After all, it was wealth just waiting to be unleashed.
Yet paradoxically, on the eve of the Abundance Revolution, many of America’s leaders, on the right as well as the left, were preaching a strict doctrine of overall austerity.
Indeed, as we look back and study the events of 2014, we can see the results of the Green elite’s ideologically-driven effort to squelch even the relatively small amount of prosperity that Americans were then enjoying. That is, it was the Green elites who unwittingly opened the door to the Abundance Revolution and the fantastic increase in wealth that Americans have since realized over the last half-century. Read more at breitbart.com.
Published on Apr 4, 2014
IRS Commissioner John Koskinen announced at the National Press Club on Tuesday, that the IRS has postponed a proposed rule change that would have banned all political speech in 501(c)(4) groups. The IRS received more than 150,000 citizen comments, far more than on any previous proposed rule change. It is interesting to note that Koskinen’s announcement consisted of about three paragraphs of an hour-long speech. This clip contains the portion of Commissioner Koskinen’s speech that deals with this issue.
The complete press release from Senator Cruz:
Sen. Cruz: Americans Are Making DC Listen
IRS announces record number of comments for anti-speech regulation
April 3, 2014
WASHINGTON, DC -– U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, released the following statement regarding IRS Commissioner John Koskinen’s remarks at the National Press Club on Tuesday.
“When Americans speak up, it makes a difference,” said Sen. Cruz. “A record number of Americans spoke out against a regulation being considered by the IRS to stifle free speech of 501(c)(4) political groups. As a result, it is unlikely those rules will be implemented this year. This is a substantial victory for the grassroots and should serve as motivation to continue pressuring the IRS to drop the rule completely.”
Specifically, Koskinen said:
Another recommendation by the IG was that the Treasury Department and the IRS should provide clearer guidance on how to assess the permissibility of 501(c)(4) social welfare organizations’ activities. So last November, Treasury and the IRS issued proposed regulations that are designed to clarify the extent to which a 501(c)(4) organization can engage in political activity without endangering its tax-exempt status.
While I was not involved in the issuance of this draft proposal, because it happened before I was confirmed as Commissioner, I believe it is extremely important to make this area of regulation as clear as possible. Not only does that help the IRS properly enforce the law, but clearer regulations will also give a better roadmap to applicants, and will help those that already have 501(c)(4) status properly administer their organizations without unnecessary fears of losing their tax-exempt status.
During the comment period, which ended in February, we received more than 150,000 comments. That’s a record for an IRS rulemaking comment period. In fact, if you take all the comments on all Treasury and IRS draft proposals over the last seven years and double that number, you come close to the number of comments we are now beginning to review and analyze. It’s going to take us a while to sort through all those comments, hold a public hearing, possibly repropose a draft regulation and get more public comments. This means that it is unlikely we will be able to complete this process before the end of the year (Bold emphasis, mine – A.D.B.).
The complete video of his remarks is available here. The relevant portion of the clip may be found at 16:50:
“Outdated” because it confilicts with liberalism. Here’s a senior at Harvard’s view:
In its oft-cited Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure, the American Association of University Professors declares that “Teachers are entitled to full freedom in research and in the publication of the results.” In principle, this policy seems sound: It would not do for academics to have their research restricted by the political whims of the moment.
Yet the liberal obsession with “academic freedom” seems a bit misplaced to me. After all, no one ever has “full freedom” in research and publication. Which research proposals receive funding and what papers are accepted for publication are always contingent on political priorities. The words used to articulate a research question can have implications for its outcome. No academic question is ever “free” from political realities. If our university community opposes racism, sexism, and heterosexism, why should we put up with research that counters our goals simply in the name of “academic freedom”?
Instead, I would like to propose a more rigorous standard: one of “academic justice.” When an academic community observes research promoting or justifying oppression, it should ensure that this research does not continue.
And what is it called when one promotes the quashing of dissenting views that they find to conflict with their ideas?
Call is “social justice” or whatever you choose, it is plain old, Brand X “oppression”.
That’s right. Every oppresive regime in the history of our world has been intolerant of dissent and has taken action to quash it. Here we see the same old tired argument presented by a liberal to further the cause of liberalism. Don’t want to hear any dissenting voices, oh no.
And yet this newly trained “scholar” presents this as if it is a brand-new, brightly minted and spectacular idea. She’s a senior at Harvard and “is a joint history of science and studies of women, gender and sexuality concentrator”.
No kidding. What a surprise. There seems to be quite a concentration of potential oppressers in that particular field of study. There certainly seems to be a dearth of critical thinkers however (she probably comes from the school of “it hasn’t worked properly yet because I haven’t been in charge”). It’s a pity she didn’t take a run-of-the-mill world history course or two to see who else in the past has shared that bright idea with her. Past hell, there’s are entire countries which have implemented that exist now.
China, Cuba and North Korea come to mind.
Liberal Bias Cited
Sharyl Attkisson, an award-winning CBS News investigative reporter who doggedly pursued the Benghazi and Fast and Furious scandals, resigned from the network yesterday. Attkisson was reportedly frustrated by CBS News’ liberal bias. Read more at: heritage.org.