RUTHFULLY YOURS

The Obama Justice Department dismissed the IRS political targeting scandal as no big deal, and the Trump Administration hasn’t been any better. At least the judiciary is still trying to hold someone to account for this government abuse.

In a little noticed decision last week, federal Judge Reggie Walton ordered the IRS to answer a series of questions by Oct. 16. Notably, the tax agency must finally explain the specific reasons for the specific delays in approving each of dozens of conservative nonprofit applications—delays that stifled free speech during a midterm and presidential election. Judge Walton is also requiring the IRS to name the specific individuals that it holds responsible for the targeting.

These are basic questions of political accountability, even if the IRS has stonewalled since 2013. President Obama continued to spin that the targeting was the result of some “boneheaded” IRS line officers in Cincinnati who didn’t understand tax law. Yet Congressional investigations have uncovered clear evidence that the targeting was ordered and directed out of Washington.

Former director of Exempt Organizations Lois Lerner was at the center of that Washington effort, but the IRS allowed her to retire with benefits. She invoked the Fifth Amendment before Congress. One of her principal deputies, Holly Paz, has submitted to a deposition in separate litigation, but the judge has sealed her testimony after she claimed she faced threats. The Acting Commissioner of the IRS at the time, Stephen Miller, stepped down in the wake of the scandal, but as far as anyone outside the IRS knows, no other IRS employee has been held to account. Even if the culprits were “rogue employees,” as the IRS claims, the public deserves to know what happened.

Judge Walton’s ruling means that “the IRS must finally acknowledge its wrongdoing (and the reasons for it) in the context of a judicial proceeding in which the agency may be held legally accountable for its misconduct,” Carly Gammill told Powerlineblog.com. Ms. Gammill is an attorney at the American Center for Law & Justice who represents tea-party groups in the litigation.

President Trump has been fighting a one-man war against political correctness. He could use some help. The Confederate monuments are as good a place as any to start

The tearing down of Confederate monuments was sure to be a divisive issue. Why raise it now, when the people of the United States are as divided as they have been at any time since—the Civil War? The question answers itself. It was raised now precisely because it would be divisive. But to say this is to call into question the motives of those who have raised the issue. Indeed.

Those who advocate tearing down the monuments accuse their opponents of racism. It’s an easy accusation to make, and not an easy one to refute. It places the moral onus on those who would defend the monuments to justify their actions, while deflecting moral scrutiny from their accusers.

Surely those who oppose the monuments do so because the Confederacy was an affront to the individual liberty of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. It is one thing to oppose slavery and racism, but it makes all the difference what one advocates in their place. And there’s the rub.

Consider Black Lives Matter. They are not a radical fringe group. Barack Obama welcomed them into the White House, where he praised their success as community organizers. They have enjoyed sympathetic nationwide media coverage, thanks in no small part to Colin Kaepernick and the entire cast of announcers at ESPN. They even have their own exhibit at the Smithsonian Exhibition.

Black Lives Matter has been at the very center of leftwing agitation against white “oppression” for the last year and a half. It is largely because of the success of BLM and their allies that the Left now feel emboldened to go after the monuments.

What exactly do Black Lives Matter advocate? According to their website, they are “committed to disrupting the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another….” If this sounds like a turning away from Western-style individualism toward African-style tribalism, that’s because it is.

Consider their view of capitalism, which is the economic system based on private property, the foundation of individual rights. On their website, BLM described capitalism as an economic system “which deforms the spirit and fuels interpersonal violence.”

In a 2016 interview for the website Essence.com, BLM co-founder Alicia Garza was asked if she thought “revolution is the answer”. “[W]e have to be clear a revolution is a process,” said Miss Garza. In other words, yes, the current system of government in the United States does need to be torn down and replaced.

If there is any doubt about Black Lives Matter’s revolutionary inclinations, consider these words from Miss Garza on the BLM website: “When I use Assata’s powerful demand in my organizing work, I always begin by sharing where it comes from, sharing about Assata’s significance to the Black Liberation Movement, what its political purpose and message is, and why it’s important in our context.” “Assata” is JoAnne Chesimard, a former soldier in the Black Liberation Army convicted in the 1973 murder of New Jersey State Trooper Werner Foerster. Mrs. Chesimard escaped from prison in 1979 and fled to Cuba.

To understand that the effort to remove the monuments grows out of the same soil that Black Lives Matter has been tilling for the last year and a half is to understand that if every single Confederate monument in the country were torn down tomorrow, it would settle nothing. It would simply be one more victory on the way to deconstructing the culture of individualism to which men like John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and George Washington gave political form. The Confederate monuments are just low-hanging fruit for the deconstructionists; who but racists would dare defend them?

Many Americans will find it fantastical to think that the removing of the Confederate monuments could possibly be just a step on the way to razing the Jefferson Memorial and the Washington Monument, much less to the extinguishing of our republican form of government. They should ponder this additional item from the Black Lives Matter website: “We are committed to … doing the work required to dismantle cis-gender privilege ….” “Cis-gender” is newspeak for people whose “sexual identity” corresponds with their anatomy.

On Sunday, Jeh Johnson, former secretary of Homeland Security under President Obama, said that removing Confederate monuments is a matter of homeland security.

“That’s not a matter of political correctness, that’s a matter of public safety and homeland security, and doing what’s right,” Johnson told ABC News in an interview.

“What alarms so many of us, from a security perspective, is that so many of the statues — the Confederate monuments — are now, modern day, becoming symbols and rallying points for white nationalism, for neo-Nazis, for the KKK,” the former DHS secretary explained.

“We fought a World War against Nazism. The KKK rained terror on African-Americans for generations,” Johnson said. “I support those in cities and states who are taking down a lot of these monuments for reasons of public safety and security.”

Cities, states, and private entities do not argue they are removing the statues for “public safety and security,” however. The University of Texas, which removed Confederate statues in the wee hours of Monday morning, explained that these monuments were “symbols of modern white supremacy and neo-Nazism.”

In April, New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu — whom Jeh Johnson praised in his interview — said, “The removal of these statues sends a clear and unequivocal message to the people of New Orleans and the nation: New Orleans celebrates our diversity, inclusion, and tolerance.” The city removed its four statues in April and May.

Anna Lope Brosche, president of the Jacksonville City Council in Florida, announced a plan of action to take an inventory of Confederate symbols and relocate them to museums. In her statement, Bosche noted that the monuments evoke “some really negative emotions, and pain and hurt.”

Some have mentioned safety — the safety of vandals who might try to remove the monuments. North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper said he must “protect North Carolinians and keep them safe,” citing “the likelihood of protesters being injured or worse as they may try to topple” the monuments, in addition to the threat of violence in rallies like Charlottesville.

Removing monuments might not guarantee safety or that white supremacists won’t rally in locations which used to have monuments, however.

Furthermore, the Left’s rush to defend vandals, to protect feelings, and to champion Antifa on the grounds that it is fighting Nazis suggests that this is an issue of political correctness more than one of homeland security.

The Humanitarian Hoax is a deliberate and deceitful tactic of presenting a destructive policy as altruistic. The humanitarian huckster presents himself as a compassionate advocate when in fact he is the disguised enemy.

Obama, the humanitarian huckster-in-chief, weakened the United States for eight years presenting his deceitful policies featuring victimhood as altruistic when in fact they were designed for destruction. His legacy, the Leftist Democrat Party with its “resistance” movement, is the party of the Humanitarian Hoax attempting to destroy American democracy and replace it with socialism.
The three basic tenets of left-wing liberal progressivism are political correctness, moral relativism, and historical revisionism. Leftist progressivism is an extremely regressive political structure that emphasizes victimhood and encourages childlike dependence on the government in its march toward socialism. Progressivism is an Orwellian doublespeak word designed to dupe the participant into believing he is moving society forward when in fact progressivism and progressive policies support regression backwards toward childhood dependence.
Historical records presents the humanitarian huckster with a conundrum. The history of our American democracy is one of immense growth, development, and achievement. American history contradicts the negative message of the humanitarian huckster attempting to transform America into socialism. Destroying historical records, historical facts, and historical icons does not erase history – it simply leaves history open to historical revisionism. Obama’s revisionist anti-American pro-Muslim Common Core re-education curriculum was a start, smashing historical statues is an escalation, violent anarchy is the ultimate Leftist strategy to destroy American democracy.

Progressivism posits that objective reality does not exist – this in itself is an invitation for historical revisionism. For progressives there are only matters of opinion and all opinions are equal. This means that opinions of out of control screaming protesters at Evergreen college have the same status as the opinion of their professors. Progressives support subjective reality and deny objective reality in their self-serving need to preserve the fiction of their narrative. Here is the problem – saying something does not make it true. Objective reality exists whether the Left accepts it or not. Watching the Left is like watching a child insist he can fly. He is certain of it – but that does not make it true or a fact in objective reality.
George Orwell understood these dynamics seventy years ago when he created the dystopian society in his cautionary tale “1984.” American society under Obama has devolved into an Orwellian nightmare of Leftist political correctness, groupthink, and moral relativism designed to destroy the moral fabric of American society. The Left is convinced of its moral superiority because its narrative of moral relativism and politically correctness insists it is superior and its groupthink mentality validates itself.
A civil society requires consensus. Normative behavior is a matter of consensus that is codified into laws that govern society. Multiculturalism challenges consensus. If one individual thinks “honor” killing is acceptable and society considers it murder then there is a problem – whose norms will prevail if everyone’s opinions are equal? When Leftists insist that opposing points of view are intolerable hate speech they hypocritically deny freedom of speech and a free society. When everything is a matter of opinion and all opinions are equal there can be no consensus. Without consensus there are no accepted laws to abide – there is only anarchy and social chaos. But that is exactly the point – the Left wants anarchy and social chaos. Their leaders are fomenting racial violence and violent anarchy because social chaos is the prerequisite for seismic social change. Obama’s “resistance” movement is trying to destroy American democracy and replace it with socialism. The Leftist/Islamist axis is attacking Judeo-Christian norms and destabilizing society with the collaborating mainstream media. For the Left to embrace the barbaric tenets of Islamist sharia law requires political correctness, moral relativism, historical revisionism and the dreamscape of subjective reality where the stunning hypocrisy of their alliance is ignored and considered irrelevant by the media.