Thursday, October 17, 2013

Yale professor 'embarrassed' to discover Tea Party members are scientifically literate. Sir, the IRS wouldn't have spent 3 years trying to stop the Tea Party if it was just some dumb hicks

10/17/13, "Eureka! Tea partiers know science," Politico, Tal Kopan
10/17/13, "Yale Professor 'Embarrassed' to Discover Tea Party Members are Scientifically Literate,", by Matt Vespa

Professor Dan M. Kahan of the psychology department at Yale says he was surprised to discover a positive correlation between science comprehension and members of the Tea Party:

"Identifying with the Tea Party correlates positively (r = 0.05, p = 0.05) with scores on the science comprehension measure."

"I've got to confess, though, I found this result surprising. As I pushed the button to run the analysis on my computer, I fully expected I'd be shown a modest negative correlation between identifying with the Tea Party and science comprehension."

"But then again, I don't know a single person who identifies with the Tea Party.  All my impressions come from watching cable tv -- & I don't watch Fox News very often -- and reading the "paper" (New York Times daily, plus a variety of politics-focused internet sites like Huffington Post & Politico)."

"I'm a little embarrassed, but mainly I'm just glad that I no longer hold this particular mistaken view."

"Of course, I still subscribe to my various political and moral assessments--all very negative-- of what I understand the "Tea Party movement" to stand for. I just no longer assume that the people who happen to hold those values are less likely than people who share my political outlooks to have acquired the sorts of knowledge and dispositions that a decent science comprehension scale measures."

Well, perhaps some of those previous opinions could've been dispelled earlier when the New York Times wrote in 2010 that Tea Partiers are more educated - and financially better off - than the rest of the public." via Free Republic


10/15/13, "Some data on education, religiosity, ideology, and science comprehension,", Dan Kahan

4th chart references Tea Party.

4/14/10, "Poll Finds Tea Party Backers Wealthier and More Educated," NY Times, by Kate Zernike and Megan Thee-Brenan

"Tea Party supporters are wealthier and more well-educated than the general public, and are no more or less afraid of falling into a lower socioeconomic class, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll....

Asked what they are angry about, Tea Party supporters offered three main concerns: 

the recent health care overhaul
government spending and a feeling that their opinions are not represented in Washington."...   


6/1/2007,Too Bad,” Peggy Noonan, Wall St. Journal, “President Bush has torn the conservative coalition asunder.”

“What President Bush is doing, and has been doing for some time, is sundering a great political coalition. This is sad, and it holds implications not only for one political party but for the American future."...

Comment: The above NY Times article really panicked people about the Tea Party. It interfered with the theme that TP supporters were stupid hicks. The Tea Party is people who see that both political parties have sold this country out to the bare walls. You're a Tea Party supporter if you recognize the US has become a crony capitalist meat market controlled by a completely independent 4th branch of government. The problem is more serious than it might be because the US has only one functioning political party, the democrats. Beltway GOP love democrats, love all the same things they do. Under the influence of both George Bushes, the GOP was deliberately collapsed into today's radical left democrats. Great for special interests but not for the country. Recognizing these facts, who wouldn't be a Tea Party supporter? Answer: special interests, especially Wall St. The full force of the federal government and its IRS was used to stop 500+ Tea Party groups in their tracks. If you're only talking about a few hicks, you generally don't need to use this kind of force.


10/3/13, "Who Broke Washington? George W. Bush: He Gave Rise to the Tea Party," National Journal, Michael Hirsch

"The rebellion against big government really began more than a decade ago with a growing sense of betrayal among conservatives over Bush's runaway spending habits."...

6/1/2007,Too Bad,” Peggy Noonan, Wall St. Journal, “President Bush has torn the conservative coalition asunder.”

“What President Bush is doing, and has been doing for some time, is sundering a great political coalition. This is sad, and it holds implications not only for one political party but for the American future. 

The White House doesn’t need its traditional supporters anymore, because its problems are way beyond being solved by the base. And the people in the administration don’t even much like the base. Desperate straits have left them liberated, and they are acting out their disdain. Leading Democrats often think their base is slightly mad but at least their heart is in the right place. This White House thinks its base is stupid and that its heart is in the wrong place.
For almost three years, arguably longer, conservative Bush supporters have felt like sufferers of battered wife syndrome. You don’t like endless gushing spending, the kind that assumes a high and unstoppable affluence will always exist, and the tax receipts will always flow in? Too bad! You don’t like expanding governmental authority and power? Too bad. You think the war was wrong or is wrong? Too bad. 

georgebushBut on immigration it has changed from “Too bad” to “You’re bad.”

The president has taken to suggesting that opponents of his immigration bill are unpatriotic–they “don’t want to do what’s right for America.” His ally Sen. Lindsey Graham has said, “We’re gonna tell the bigots to shut up.” On Fox last weekend he vowed to “push back.” Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff suggested opponents would prefer illegal immigrants be killed; Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez said those who oppose the bill want “mass deportation.” Former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson said those who oppose the bill are “anti-immigrant” and suggested they suffer from “rage” and “national chauvinism.”

Why would they speak so insultingly, with such hostility, of opponents who are concerned citizens? And often, though not exclusively, concerned conservatives? It is odd, but it is of a piece with, or a variation on, the “Too bad” governing style. And it is one that has, day by day for at least the past three years, been tearing apart the conservative movement.
I suspect the White House and its allies have turned to name calling because they’re defensive, and they’re defensive because they know they have produced a big and indecipherable mess of a bill–one that is literally bigger than the Bible, though as someone noted last week, at least we actually had a few years to read the Bible. The White House and its supporters seem to be marshaling not facts but only sentiments, and self-aggrandizing ones at that.

 They make a call to emotions–this is, always and on every issue, the administration’s default position–but not, I think, to seriously influence the debate…. 

If they’d really wanted to help, as opposed to braying about their own wonderfulness, they would have created not one big bill but a series of smaller bills, each of which would do one big clear thing, the first being to close the border. Once that was done–actually and believably done–the country could relax in the knowledge that the situation was finally not day by day getting worse. They could feel some confidence. And in that confidence real progress could begin.

The beginning of my own sense of separation from the Bush administration came in January 2005, when the president declared that it is now the policy of the United States to eradicate tyranny in the world, and that the survival of American liberty is dependent on the liberty of every other nation. This was at once so utopian and so aggressive that it shocked me. For others the beginning of distance might have been Katrina and the incompetence it revealed, or the depth of the mishandling and misjudgments of Iraq.

What I came in time to believe is that the great shortcoming of this White House, the great thing it is missing, is simple wisdom. Just wisdom–a sense that they did not invent history, that this moment is not all there is, that man has lived a long time and there are things that are true of him, that maturity is not the same thing as cowardice, that personal loyalty is not a good enough reason to put anyone in charge of anything, that the way it works in politics is a friend becomes a loyalist becomes a hack, and actually at this point in history we don’t need hacks. 

One of the things I have come to think the past few years is that the Bushes, father and son, though different in many ways, are great wasters of political inheritance. They throw it away as if they’d earned it and could do with it what they liked. Bush senior inherited a vibrant country and a party at peace with itself. He won the leadership of a party that had finally, at great cost, by 1980, fought itself through to unity and come together on shared principles. Mr. Bush won in 1988 by saying he would govern as Reagan had. 

Yet he did not understand he’d been elected to Reagan’s third term. He thought he’d been elected because they liked him. And so he raised taxes, sundered a hard-won coalition, and found himself shocked to lose his party the presidency, and for eight long and consequential years. He had many virtues, but he wasted his inheritance.

Bush the younger came forward, presented himself as a conservative, garnered all the frustrated hopes of his party, turned them into victory, and not nine months later was handed a historical trauma that left his country rallied around him, lifting him, and his party bonded to him. He was disciplined and often daring, but in time he sundered the party that rallied to him, and broke his coalition into pieces. He threw away his inheritance. I do not understand such squandering.
Now conservatives and Republicans are going to have to win back their party. They are going to have to break from those who have already broken from them. This will require courage, serious thinking and an ability to do what psychologists used to call letting go. This will be painful, but it’s time.  

It’s more than time.”


2/20/13, As Country Club Republicans Link Up With The Democratic Ruling Class, Millions Of Voters Are Orphaned,” Angelo Codevilla, Forbes

“Increasingly the top people in government, corporations, and the media collude and demand submission as did the royal courts of old.”… 

GOP House Speaker Boehner was thrilled the democrat president was re-elected. Obama saved Boehner from the Tea Party: NPR

12/8/12, Once Boxed-In, Boehner May Finally Be Master Of The House, NPR, Frank James

In a paradoxical way, Obama’s re-election victory coupled with congressional Democrats adding to their numbers may have helped Boehner. Some of those wins came at the expense of the Tea Party, the conservative movement whose affiliated House members have been very willing to stand up to Boehner. In recent weeks, Boehnerhas gotten his entire leadership team to sign his tax-raising, fiscal-cliff counteroffer….Despite complaints from conservative activists and bloggers, however, Boehner remains the most powerful Republican in Washington.”

The Constitutional problem of ObamaCare:

Two days after Obama’s re-election John Boehner enthused that ObamaCare was “the law of the land” simply due to Obama’s re-election. ObamaCare isn’t the law of the land, isn’t legal to this day. Among other things, Mr. Boehner failed his constitutional duty to hold a vote in the House up or down on ObamaCare as a tax:

House Speaker John Boehner made it official Thursday: Obamacare isn’t going anywhere. In an interview with ABC News, Boehner seemed to suggest the election ended any efforts to wipe out the whole law. When “World News” anchor Diane Sawyer asked if there would be any more votes to repeal the law, Boehner said the election changes thatand “Obamacare is the law of the land.””  
"The vast majority of “laws” governing the United States are not passed by Congress but are issued as regulations, crafted largely by thousands of unnamed, unreachable bureaucrats....The shift of authority has been staggering. The fourth branch now has a larger practical impact on the lives of citizens than all the other branches combined."

5/24/13, "The rise of the fourth branch of government," Washington Post, Jonathan Turley, opinion
"The growing dominance of the federal government over the states has obscured more fundamental changes within the federal government itself: It is not just bigger, it is dangerously off kilter. Our carefully constructed system of checks and balances is being negated by the rise of a fourth branch, an administrative state of sprawling departments and agencies that govern with increasing autonomy and decreasing transparency.

This exponential growth has led to increasing power and independence for agencies. The shift of authority has been staggering. The fourth branch now has a larger practical impact on the lives of citizens than all the other branches combined."...   



10/20/11, "The lost decade," Angelo M. Codevilla, Claremont Institute (2001-2011)

"Again and again, the American people are forced to confront the fact that its ruling class is not on its side." (subhead, Public Safety) 


Facts about IRS abuse of 500 Tea Party groups beginning in 2010:

5/16/13, "The Nine Lies of Lois Lerner," NRO, Kevin D. Williamson

"Lie No. 1: Lois Lerner’s apology last Friday was a spontaneous reaction to an unexpected question from an unknown audience member. 

In fact, the question came from tax lawyer and lobbyist Celia Roady.... She is a longtime colleague of Lerner, who is director of tax-exempt organizations. Ms. Roady has declined to comment on whether her question was planted, but it obviously was. The IRS had contacted reporters and encouraged them beforehand to attend the otherwise un-newsworthy event, and it had an entire team of press handlers on hand. So what we have is the staged rollout of what turns out to be — given the rest of this list — a disinformation campaign. 

Lie No. 2: Lerner said about 280 organizations were given extra scrutiny, about 75 of them tea-party groups or similar organizations.

The actual number of organizations that were targeted is closer to 500.
Lie No. 3: This was the work of low-level grunts in Cincinnati.

In truth, very senior people within the IRS, including its top lawyer, were aware of the situation, and had been since at least 2011. The home office in Washington was very much involved in the process.
Lie No. 4: Lerner says that the situation came to her attention through allegations from tea-party groups carried in media reports. 

In fact, the matter has been under both internal and external investigation for some time.
Lie No. 5: Lerner says she put an end to the practice as soon as she found out about it.

In fact, the IRS continued to do precisely the same thing, only monkeying a little bit with the language: Instead of targeting “tea party” groups explicitly, it targeted those groups with an interest in such esoterica as limited government, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, etc.

[Ed. note: "-As of Dec, 17, 2012, 160 applications were still open, "some for more than 3 years and crossing two election cycles." May 14, 2013, "TREASURY INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR TAX ADMINISTRATION," US Dept. of Treasury

"Inappropriate Criteria Were Used to Identify Tax-Exempt Applications for Review" 54 pages

-"Inappropriate" IRS actions began in early 2010 -"No work was completed on the majority of these applications for 13 months."]

(continuing): Lie No. 6: She says that the commissioner of the IRS didn’t know about the targeting project.

While the targeting was going on, Ms. Lerner’s boss was being asked some very pointed questions by Congress on the subject of targeting tea-party groups. He enthusiastically denied that any such thing was going on, in direct contravention of the facts. Ms. Lerner says he didn’t know about the situation, because it was confined to those aforementioned plebs in Cincinnati. But given that this was not the case, her explaining away the commissioner’s untrue statements to Congress is a lie based on another lie — a compound lie, if you will. And acting commissioner Steven Miller was briefed on the situation in May of 2012 — and then declined to share his knowledge of it with Congress when asked about it during a hearing in July.


Lie No. 7: Lerner says she came forward with her apology unprompted by any special consideration. 

In fact, an inspector general’s report was about to be released, making the matter public.

Lie No. 8: When Congress was investigating complaints from conservative groups, Lerner told them that she could not release information about organizations with pending applications.

But her group was in fact releasing such information — to the left-leaning news organization ProPublica, rather than to congressional investigators.

[Ed. note: 5/13/13, "IRS Office That Targeted Tea Party Also Disclosed Confidential Docs From Conservative Groups," Pro Publica, Barker and Elliott.

"Pro Publica was not contacted by the inspector general's office."]


Lie No. 9: Lerner says that there was no political pressure to investigate tea-party groups.  

In fact, Senator Carl Levin (D., Mich.) repeatedly pressed the agency to investigate conservative groups falling under Lerner’s jurisdiction.

[Added: "From Max Baucus to Chuck Schumer to Jeanne Shaheen, key Senate Democrats publicly pressured the IRS to target groups that held differing political views and who, in their view, had the temerity to engage in the political process. The IRS listened to them and acted. And other Democrat senators like Kay Hagan and Mark Pryor said and did nothing about it."]


3/9/13, Leslie Eastman: "As a Democrat, I am often grateful to the support shown to me by Republican friends."

5/16/13, "My Tea Party group’s futile attempt to get IRS tax-exempt status," Legal Insurrection, Leslie Eastman (Ms. Eastman is a democrat).

"We saw the handwriting on the wall, and gave up trying. The news dam has broken, and a deluge of stories from conservative citizen groups of horrendous dealings with the Internal Revenue Service is now spilling out.

I would like to share the background on my group’s quest for tax-exempt status.  The Southern California Tax Revolt Coalition was formed in February 2009 in the wake of the first national tea parties.  We then applied for IRS 501(c)(4) status in July, but abandoned that effort in April 2010, when it became clear to us that the IRS was just delaying.

Dawn Wildman, the President of the organization, offers these details:

"After we held the first tea party in California, in San Diego, Leslie, Sarah and I decided we saw a need here for a group that would be honest with the electorate about how bad policies would affect their bottom line and budget. So we did what most responsible citizens would do, we incorporated as a business in California so we could protect our work, ourselves and the public we dealt  with on a regular basis. We decided an LLC [Limited Liability Company] suited what we were doing and for us personally. So it was done, and the Southern California Tax Revolt Coalition, LLC was born in February of 2009.

Then we decided we should attempt to get federal IRS tax exempt status of 501c4 so we could further raise money to effect real change in our community. We never expected to raise huge sums of money but knew we needed to further protect the organization and all of those people who believed in us and what we were doing. We even asked for help from our members to raise the administrative fees [$1500] that were required for us to even file the application with the IRS. After we had finished the pages and pages of information for the application and wrote our check for the fee we sent out [with] our application if the IRS would reject our application based on our name alone — the Southern California Tax Revolt Coalition. [This was July, 2009.]""....


No comments: