Get PJ Media on your Apple

Roger’s Rules

Having just returned from a stimulating colloquy at a semi-secure, undisclosed location among the California redwoods — a location, moreover, cut off from the always exigent importunities of the Internet — I find that our masters in and about Washington, D.C., have continued that long-running road show “Wrecking the United States of America.”  The latest act, taking its place right alongside the three-ring circus of Appeasing Russia, Enabling Hamas, and Turning a Blind Eye Towards Iran, is the Great Disappearing Border Trick now showing in the southern most reaches of what we used to be able to call our country — you know, those bits of Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona that border the land that “stout Cortes,” with eagle eyes, gazed upon lo! these many years ago. I mean, to speak plainly, the anarchic breakdown of law and order on the southern border of the United States of America and tsunami of illegal immigration orchestrated by Democrats in search of fresh dependents and future voters for their cause of destroying America.

Does that sound harsh?  Have you been paying attention?  How many millions of illegal aliens are the Democrats going to welcome and then grant amnesty to? At this point, no one knows.  The clock is still running.  Meanwhile, if Republicans block amnesty, the president has threatened to whip out his phone and his pen (or, at least, his pen) and extend amnesty by executive order.  That would be a sterling example of executive overreach, i.e., executive lawlessness, but what do you supposed establishment Republicans, those in the punditocracy as well our elected representatives, say?  Just before I went offline for a spell, David Brooks of The New York Times explained that talking about impeaching Obama was “obviously Cloud-Cuckoo-Land.”  And just yesterday, Charles Krauthammer, while acknowledging that, were Obama to grant legal status to the hordes besieging our southern border, he would be flouting the law and would have committed an impeachable offense, nevertheless said that to impeach the president would be “political suicide.”

Let’s pause over those statements for a moment.  Cast your mind back to that moment in 2013 when the Republicans decided to use the power of the purse that the Constitution vested in the House. Obama did everything he could to demagogue the situation. He cancelled tours of the White House, closed air lanes, and kept veterans out of national parks and monuments. Republicans promptly caved and swore they’d never listen to Ted Cruz again.  So Congress is no longer allowed to use its power of the purse to check executive overreach.

Fast forward to today.  The spectacle of lawlessness practiced by this administration is, or should be, breathtaking. It’s been catalogued by many observers, most crisply and exhaustively, I think, by my friend Andy McCarthy, whose book Faithless Execution is a veritable catalogue of lawlessness, from earlier immigration follies and abuse of the IRS to Obamacare and the festering scandal of Benghazi. One wit observed to me that the book ought to have been published the way some law school textbooks are, in a sort of binder format so that new cases can be added as they occur.  Faithless Execution was released in May, but already there have been important new instances of presidential lawlessness, e.g., trading five senior Taliban operatives for  one army deserter, Robert Bergdahl, new IRS follies, and right now, today, the immigration implosion.

Pages: 1 2 | 94 Comments»

Even as Establishment Washington, Republican as well as Democrat, does it’s ostrich imitation and pretends that there is Nothing To See Here, Move Along, two organizations, and two courageous judges, are beginning to peel back layer after layer from the fetid onion of corruption that is the scandal of the IRS’s “lost” emails.  As the Washington Free Beacon reports, law suits brought by True the Vote and the invaluable watchdog group Judicial Watch have resulted in court orders that the IRS answer the complaints and show eft-sone and right speedily (i.e., within a month) what steps were taken to retrieve the supposedly lost emails from Lois “I’ll take the Fifth” Lerner.  As Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, noted, “These extraordinary court rulings are key steps in unraveling the Obama IRS’s ongoing cover up of its abuses against critics of this administration.”

Commenting on this development, Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit had the obvious ( also the correct) response: “They were incriminating, and show White House involvement. So they were ‘lost.’”

It was ever thus.  I am just re-reading bits of David Fromkin’s classic Europe’s Last Summer: Who Started the Great War in 1914?  In a chapter called “Shredding the Evidence,” Fromkin details how the French and Germans both did their best to muddy the historical record, and thereby escape blame for the catastrophe of the war, by concealing, destroying, or falsifying incriminating documents. Gradually, modern scholarship has managed to piece together the truth, at least in broad outline.  It has been a painstaking process. Looking back over the many efforts by the chief players to distort the truth and thereby escape blame, Fromkin notes soberly that “On the whole, we have to draw the obvious and commonsense conclusion that documents destroyed or hidden probably were embarrassing or incriminating, and that the effort to blot out or falsify the record was undertaken in order to deny responsibility for the IRS’s criminal activity in persecuting opponents of the Obama administration.”

Pages: 1 2 | 29 Comments»

The Rot of Intolerance at Swarthmore

June 29th, 2014 - 5:36 am

It’s nice when they make things perfectly clear. You step on to a college campus and you are beset by people parading around telling you how much they love “diversity.” Then you find out that when anyone who holds an opinion not perfectly in line the the contemporary gospel of race-gender-environmental sensitivity, they are shouted off campus.  If they had been invited to speak at campus, they are disinvited, or if that wasn’t possible their appearance is subjected to sophomoric protests.  As I put it last month in The New Criterion, contemporary academia presents us with that oxymoronic phenomenon, Illiberal Liberalism. 

Many well-meaning folks, I’ve observed, tend to discount the seriousness of this development. No matter how egregious the episode, they are ready with an extenuating excuse. It was an exception. It was not as bad as you made it seem. It was quickly remedied by a caring/sharing administration.  Et very much cetera.

It will be difficult, I think, for such hear-no-evil types to argue away Peter Berkowitz’s Open Letter to Swarthmore’s Board of Managers.  Berkowitz, himself an alumnus of Swarthmore, wrote to urge the tony but financially troubled institution to choose carefully in its search for a new president.  Please, he asked, please pick someone who will uphold the traditional values of liberal education, values that centrally include tolerance for competing views of the world.  Contemplating what actually happens at pampered institutions like Swarthmore, however, it is difficult to be sanguine. Berkowitz cites one episode that, in its crisp fatuousness, epitomizes so much that is wrong with higher education today.

Princeton Professors Robert George and Cornel West differ sharply in their philosophies. George is a conservative Catholic, West is some variety of Leftist firebrand. Despite their differences, however, they are friends and often appear together to debate. This is how it should be on college campuses, of course, since colleges are institutions that were formed to encourage free inquiry.

But that formation took place long ago.  When the pair came to Swarthmore in February to debate “same-sex marriage,” they were greeted by angry protests. Listen to Erin Ching, Class of 16: “What really bothered me,” Ching was quoted in the Swarthmore student newspaper as saying, “is the whole idea that at a liberal arts college, we need to be hearing a diversity of opinion. I don’t think we should be tolerating [George’s] conservative views because that dominant culture embeds these deep inequalities in our society.”

Pages: 1 2 | 70 Comments»

Deunionize the IRS

June 25th, 2014 - 5:55 am


Here’s a headline from Forbes that caught my eye: 

IRS Employees Union Is ‘Very Concerned’ About Being Required To Enroll In Obamacare’s Health Insurance Exchange

You can’t blame ’em. Workers in the private sector are also “very concerned” about getting dumped into Obamacare’s subsidized insurance exchanges as, one by one, employers are forced to give up providing health insurance for their employees.

It’s possible that, like me, you are entertaining an un-Christian feeling of Schadenfreude about this happening to a large, widely loathed, and deeply politicized government agency.

But thing thing that should really arrest your attention about this headline, and the story it introduces, is contained in the first three words: “IRS Employees Union.”

The government’s tax collecting agency is unionized?  Think about that for a moment.

The union in question is the National Treasury Employees Union. According to the web site of the NTEU, the mission of the union is “to organize federal employees to work together to ensure that every federal employee is treated with dignity and respect.” That’s a tall order, in part because there are so very many federal employees. The NTEU’s web site includes a nifty interactive graphic that shows you just how many there are in each state: 279,622 in Texas, for example, 350,544 in California, 165,943 in New York, etc., etc. There are, in short, millions of them.

And what political party do you suppose they support? In the 2012 election cycle, 94% of its PAC contributions went to Democrats, 4% to Republicans. That’s only one year, of course. How about 2010? That year 98% of its contributions went to Democrats, 2% went to Republicans. 2008 was a bit more balanced: that year only 96% went to Democrats. As Andrew Stiles pointed out at National Review, the NTEU is a “powerful, deeply partisan union whose boss has publicly disparaged the Tea Party and criticized the Republican party for having ties to it.”

As the example of Lois “I’ll-take-the-Fifth” Lerner suggests, employees at the IRS support Democrat candidates by a huge margin. “The agency’s employees are heavily engaged in politics and lean considerably to the left,” Stiles reports. “Records show that IRS employees in 2012 donated more than twice as much to the Obama as to the Romney campaign. Nearly two-thirds of all employee contributions over the last three elections cycles have gone to Democrats.”

Pages: 1 2 | 40 Comments»

It’s only recently that I became aware of  John Koskinen, who was sworn in as the 48th commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service in December 2013. Mr. Koskinen is obviously a smart chap: BA magna cum laude in physics from Duke; member of Phi Beta Kappa; a JD, cum laude, from Yale; and post-graduate work at Cambridge University. Watching snippets of his testimony before Congress on June 20th and June 23rd about the Case of the Missing Emails, however, I had to wonder whether, in all his years working for Freddie Mac and trying to salvage the Teamsters pension plan, he had ever managed to take on board Walter Scott’s famous couplet from “Marmion:

Oh, what a tangled web we weave
When first we practice to deceive!

This was not Mr. Koskinen’s first time testifying, under oath, before Congress about the ever-broadening IRS scandal. Back in March, Mr. Koskinen faced a demand that the IRS produce “every single email [sent by Lois 'I-take-the 5th' Lerner] in the time period in the subpoena.”

“Will you commit to provide all those emails?”

“Yes, we will do that,” answered Koskinen.

Words are funny things, though.  What do you suppose the congressman meant by “all” and “every single email”?

If you’re just an ordinary Joe or Jill, the sort of schlump folks like John Koskinen and Lois Lerner are used to pushing around, you might have thought that Congressman Jim Jordan, who made the demand, wanted the IRS to turn over, you know, all of Lois Lerner’s emails from the period under review, that is, he wanted the IRS to produce every single email from the specified period.

Are we clear about that? (In case you think the request was ambiguous, look at this footage.)

On March 26, Mr. Koskinen said (I paraphrase), “Sure, boss, no problem: you want all the emails of la Lerner, I promise to get you all the dame’s emails.”

That was March 26th. On that date, according to Mr. Koskinen’s sworn testimony, he had no idea that he didn’t have access to all of Lois Lerner’s emails because, gosh darn, her hard drive failed and, wouldn’t you know it, they had no backup and, what’s more,  Lerner’s hard drive had been “recycled.”

So he couldn’t produce all the emails because (as far as we know right now) many of the emails are lost. The IRS, Mr. Koskinen testified, knew about the lost emails in February, but no one told him, the commissioner of the agency, this interesting fact until April.

It’s nice that it was April, because had it been anytime before March 26, a skeptical observer might conclude that John Koskinen had been economical with the truth when he testified before Congress on March 26th and promised to hand over all the emails.

Just as the IRS forgot or neglected — at least, they said, according to Mr. Koskinen, that they forgot or neglect — to tell him that 2 years’ worth of emails had gone missing, so Mr. Koskinen forgot or neglected to tell Congress about this most interesting fact when (according to him) he found out about it in April. Exactly when in April?  He can’t remember. Who told him?  He can’t remember that either. After all, the IRS has 90,000 employees (think about that!) and, after all, it was filing season. He was busy.

What do you think about that gambit? Convinced?

Or how about this: the IRS, which requires individuals to keep records for 7 years, only keeps emails for 6 months. Mr. Koskinen also testified that they cap the number of emails they save at 6,000. Why? Because their servers are overloaded. The head of the IRS said that it would cost between $10 and $30 million to upgraded their servers to accommodate a full backup.

Pages: 1 2 | 80 Comments»

“Never apologize, never explain”: The IRS brazens it out

There are plenty of circumstances in which that pithy imperative —variously attributed to Disraeli, Queen VIctoria, and sundry other worthies — wins my admiration. “Never apologize, never explain”: I like the blunt, no-nonsense aroma it exudes, the hinted-at announcement that there will be no wallowing in unproductive self-recriminations or manufactured displays of contrition. There is a reason, I think, that the motto seems traceable to Victorian times: an era when manly forthrightness still had a prominent place in the economy of public life.

But context is everything. It is one thing to say “Never apologize, never explain” as an adjunct or symptom of cultural self-confidence, quite another in an atmosphere of duplicity, evasion, or brazen contempt. IRS Commissioner John Koskinen presented a breathtaking example of the latter when he blithely admitted that the IRS had simply “recycled,” I.e., tossed out, physically destroyed, Lois Lerner’s malfunctioning hard drive that (he claimed) was unrecoverable. “I don’t think an apology is owed,” he told a stunned House Ways and Means Committee.

Of course he doesn’t. Why should the head of an increasingly politicized government agency apology for the mendacity and obstructive behavior of his subordinates? As Barack Obama promised his acolytes on the eve of the 2008 election, he was out to “fundamentally transform the United States of America.” Remember that? One of the things he has managed to transform is the machinery of government. People have always been wary of agencies like the IRS, with their vast, often unappealable powers. But more and more people now fear and loathe them as instruments of political conformity and — it is not too strong a word — tyranny.

David Camp, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, spoke for many when he told the Commissioner, “You can blame it on a technical glitch, but it is not a technical glitch to mislead the American people. You say that you have ‘lost’ the emails, but what you have lost is all credibility.”


Videos: The IRS Commissioner Doesn’t Really Care What You Think

Putting the ‘PC’ in Providence College

June 15th, 2014 - 10:40 am

The other day, I wrote about Harry Stein’s new comic novel Will Tripp: Pissed Off Attorney at Law. It’s an hilarious send-up of the rancid PC establishment that rules the roost at most American colleges and universities. It is, like David Lodge’s Small World or Randall Jarrell’s Pictures from an Institution, intended as a species of satire. But as I noted in an update to that piece, the absurdist realities of contemporary academia make it very difficult to distinguish reliably between satire and the reality being satirized. Give it a try: Which of the following biographical sketches is satire, which is business as usual?

1. Feminist the First is an “American writer, academic and social activist. Influential in the self-esteem movement in the 1980s. Grabler has penned a number of best sellers, including I Am My Own Father, Mother and Best Friend, Narcissism is Not a Four-Letter Word, and The Romance of Self Adoration. . . . In her recent academic work, she has helped popularize the once widely derided idea that all living things, including single-cell organisms and crops, experience violence as pain. Author of Pain and Anguish, considered the definitive text on the subject, she holds the Phillip J. Donohue Chair for Advanced Oppression Studies at Chester College.”

2. Feminist the Second is being honored for “her many years of dedication to furthering the causes of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer (LGBTQ) communities. Since 1965, when she picketed the White House for Gay rights, and published an article in Sexology Magazine, [her] writings have inspired and fueled second wave feminism, women’s spirituality movements and lesbian activism. . . . Selected works include but are not limited to: A Simple Revolution, Edward the Dyke and Other Poems, Another Mother Tongue, Blood, Bread, and Roses: How Menstruation Created the World, and Love Belongs to Those Who Do the Feeling.”

Stumped? Really, you should read Harry’s novel to find out, but I won’t keep you in suspense. The author of The Romance of Self-Adoration is true-to-life but fictional while the “spiritualist” who wrote Blood, Bread, and Roses: How Menstruation Created the World is the real, so-to-speak, McCoy: Professor Judy Grahn, Ph.D. in “Integral Studies, California Institute of Integral Studies,” and “Executive Core Faculty Member” at Sofia University in (but of course) California. (It gets better: Professor Grahn’s dissertation, I learned from the web site, is called Are Goddesses Metaformic Constructs? An Application Of Metaformic Theory To Menarche Celebrations And Goddess Rituals Of Kerala And Contiguous States In South India.)

I revisit this doleful subject by way of prelude to another installment in one of the longest running frauds on the American spirit and pocketbook ever devised, the institution of liberal arts education in its contemproary deformation. As regular readers know, this is a subject I have written about frequently, in these columns, in The New Criterion, and in my books Tenured Radicals and The Rape of the Masters. Like Macbeth, I have “supped full with horrors.”

There are always new and more outlandish Judy Grahns, of course, and they are reliable sources of pitiable comedy. But in a way what’s more alarming than the lunatic fringes of academia are the supposedly sunlit uplands, those institutions, second- and third-tier as well as the Ivies and their Williams-Middlebury-Wesleyan sort of competition, that we’ve entrusted with passing the baton of civilization to the next generation.

I thought about this yesterday when a friend sent me some correspondence he’d had with Providence College, a second-tier liberal arts college in Providence, Rhode Island, that is run by the Dominicans, the order of St. Thomas Aquinas.  My friend’s daughter had recently graduated from PC. She profited from her time there and even found her vocation as a Dominican nun there.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 | 30 Comments»

Writing yesterday about the IRS’s amazing loss of more than two years of Lois Lerner’s emails (“Where’d they go? They were here just a minute ago!”), I wondered in passing how the Extended White House Public Relations Office, e.g., the New York Times, MSNBC, et al. would handle the news. The Nixon White House, you’ll recall, found quite a lot of the morning’s scrambled on its collective countenance when 18 and 1/2 minutes of audio tape somehow—somehow!—went missing as the Watergate scandal unfolded around the president. 

What a godsend to the guardians of our “Right to Know” Watergate was! Day after day, week after week, month after month, the front pages and editorial pages of our former Paper of Record were full of stern admonitions about that egregious abuse of executive power. You could not look at the paper without a synesthetic shudder: Reading it, you could almost hear them licking their chops as their prey—the dastardly Richard Nixon—came ever closer to his doom.

So how does the New York Times handle this extraordinary loss of two years’ worth of Lois Lerner’s emails?  (“Really, they were here just a minute ago. We were just about to hand them over to Congress when, gosh darn, they just vanished.  Damndest thing.”)

This will amaze you, I know, but it is true: the New York Times  today devotes zero words to the story. Take a look at the front page here:  Nothing. There are a couple of articles about Iraq’s descent into chaos—Iraq, the country whose transformation Joe Biden, in 2010, called one of the “greatest achievements” of the Obama administration. “I’ve been there 17 times now,” the vice president told Larry King.  “I know every one of the major players in all of the segments of that society. It’s impressed me. I’ve been impressed how they have been deciding to use the political process rather than guns to settle their differences.” But I digress . . .

What else do we have on the front page?  Warnings about a connection between obesity and liver disease. Something about the tea party in the aftermath of David Brat’s upset victory in Virginia and a story about restauranteurs upset by apps bypassing maitre d’s in securing good tables at posh eateries. The public has a right to know these things. There is also advance word about a coming article about the entertainer “Beyoncé the Boundless” (they teach alliteration in J school), the soccer games in Brazil, and sundry other topics.

What about the missing emails?  Nary a word on the front page. Or the next page. Or the next or the next.  The editorial page has a stern piece about “The Soros Cycle of Endless Cash”—oh, wait, no, it’s not about the left-wing billionaire George Soros. My mistake. What he does with his money is his business. It’s about—can you guess?—yes! The Koch brothers, the men the Times just loves to hate. But about the missing emails in one of the most disgusting political scandals in recent times, the deployment of the IRS with its virtually unlimited powers, against political opponents of the administration? Nothing. Nada. Rien.

Pages: 1 2 | 66 Comments»

So the IRS suffered a catastrophic hard disk failure and — lo and behold! – two years of Lois Lerner’s emails have vanished: poof! Just like that. Imagine. Evidence of those happy days targeting conservative groups, gone. So much for the memoir. Eliana Johnson reports that Dave Camp, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, is really steamed. He has even asked the Justice Department to look into it.  “The fact that I am just learning about this, over a year into the investigation, is completely unacceptable and now calls into question the credibility of the IRS’s response to congressional inquiries,” he said in a statement. “There needs to be an immediate investigation and forensic audit by Department of Justice as well as the Inspector General.”

Still laughing? Yes, that would be Eric Holder’s Justice Department.  Don’t hold your breath, Mr. Camp.

Now, I actually might be able to help the IRS.  When we lost a hard disk at my office with lots of archival material, we were pretty glum.  But there are scads of data recovery companies whose entire business revolves around getting data off damaged hard disks. (“Recovering data from damaged hard disks” turned up 31,200,000 results in .36 seconds on the Google search I just performed.) I’m sure there are many such companies within a stone’s throw of the IRS.  And here’s an offer: I’ll gladly pay personally to have the data recovered. Really. It’s only $1000 bucks, $2000 tops, and I’d pay a lot more than that to know what was in those emails. Wouldn’t you?

But here’s the thing.  After we lost that hard disk, we wised up and started backing up.  We have redundant backups in our office and offsite back ups as well.  And we’re a tiny company with no IT department. The IRS commands the resources of the federal government and as much of your money as it chooses to glom on to. Is it credible that they have no backups of two years’ worth of emails of a senior staff person—a senior staff person who just happens to be at the center of a huge scandal?  What do you think?

I have a couple of other questions. 1. How will the New York Times, MSNBC, CNN, and the rest of the extended White House public relations team cover this story?  Will they cover it?  And 2. What will it take to rouse the public from its supine attitude of hapless acquiescence to this administration’s increasingly brazen lawlessness? I almost tire of reciting the litany, but here it is, part of it, once again, on the next page:

Pages: 1 2 | 92 Comments»

Will Tripp, Pissed Off Attorney At Law

June 13th, 2014 - 5:27 am

Now that we have the “disinvitation season” behind us, that spring frolic in which our pampered institutions of higher education indulge in a little bacchanal of politically correct frenzy, inviting only to disinvite commencement speakers who have said or done something, anything, that does not pass muster with this week’s Commissar of Correctness—now, I say, that we’re well into June and the feminists, transexuals, racialists, eco-gender lesbian vegan anti-capitalists, and all the other assorted exotic fauna that congregate in and around the academy have decamped to restore their tissues and dream of victims yet to come, it is time for a little respite from that stultifying hothouse of intolerance.  I can think of few more delightful antidotes to that lank, joy-killing species of snarling self-indulgence than Harry Stein’s new novel Will Tripp, Pissed Off Attorney At Law. 

Meet Counselor Tripp. He’s a proud dwarf who was paying his way through law school by means of his athletic prowess, sort of. He made good money being tossed by the inebriated patrons of a local bar until some do-gooding crusader took time away from battling against second-hand smoke and carbon emissions to intervene to Save the Dwarfs and got the sport of dwarf tossing declared illegal. Will’s new employment as he struggled through law school was inspecting sewers.

It was while padding down the local cloaca maxima that Will’s settled dislike of politically correct busybodies hardened into a gem-like and hilarious contempt. I won’t give away the plot of this clever divertissement, except to say that the story takes place on a college campus near you and involves a deliciously repulsive feminist charlatan—you know her, too—and various emasculated specimens of homo academicus. 

Pages: 1 2 | 6 Comments»