So many significant stories are emerging at the same time, it’s hard to comment on everything. I wanted to be sure to write about the Gosnell verdict on Monday. I freely admit I’m disappointed by the sentence he received: two life terms without parole in exchange for not appealing. As I said in the earlier post, if ever anyone deserved the death penalty, it is Gosnell.

At the same time that the Benghazi investigation heated up last week, we learned the IRS was targeting conservative groups who were applying to become non-profit organizations. An IRS official admitted it publicly last Friday. Any group that had Tea Party in the name or that even spoke about making America better or studying the Constitution, became a target. These organizations had been telling the media this ever since the harassment began in 2009, but no one took them seriously. Now we know they were treated differently simply because of their political views.

The IRS is supposed to be a nonpartisan agency. White House spokesman Jay Carney even pointed to the fact that it has only two political appointees. In fact, the past head of the agency had been appointed by Bush. He testified that nothing of the sort was going on, but now it has come to light he knew back in May 2012. The report on Friday came in the form of an apology.

That apology is far too little and much too late, as far as those organizations who were put through the wringer are concerned. The animus of the IRS toward them was blatant.

Much of this scrutiny was apparently an attempt to blunt the conservative movement’s momentum in elections, both in 2010 and 2012. The IRS became an arm of the Obama administration and campaign.

Naturally, the White House is saying the president had nothing to do with this. After all, the IRS is an “independent” agency of the government. Yet we all know how this works. Previous presidents have been able to use the IRS against their political enemies—FDR and Nixon, for instance, did so. In fact, one of the impeachment articles against Nixon dealt with his use of the IRS to undermine his opponents during Watergate. A president doesn’t have to give anyone a direct order; those in sympathy with him at the agency can easily detect what he wants, something Obama has “joked” about during his presidency—having people investigated by the IRS. One study showed that IRS employees gave far more to his campaign than to Romney’s.

Another feature of this administration is always to push the blame onto low-level employees. In this instance, we’re told some employees in the Cincinnati office didn’t understand the parameters of what was permissible. Yet now information has come forth showing that IRS employees in Washington, DC, were right in the middle of it. But, as far as President Obama is concerned, it’s all separate from his administration. It’s just one big mistake.

I have as much trouble believing that as I do his tall tales on Benghazi.

I’ve been watching some of the videos from the NATO protests in Chicago. Protesters throw bottles and other missiles at police. Some have called for the deaths of police and NATO personnel. Many are dressed in outfits that make them look like no more than ordinary street thugs. As some commentators have noted, this is all very organized; radical unions like the SEIU are behind the coordinated mayhem. Keep in mind these are protests against violence. Supposedly.

Police and demonstrators have clashed on various occasions. What’s interesting is that some national news reports are portraying the police in an unfavorable light, while reports from local news outlets are praising their restraint and appear grateful for their protection. Any agenda here from the national level?

When President Obama was asked about these protests, and their blatant incivility, he responded that this is what America is all about—allowing people to protest. Mr. President, there is such a thing as genuine protest, and there is also anarchy. I’m not surprised by his response, though. After all, he was a community organizer.

What a contrast with Tea Party rallies. While the national media ignore the radical dimension associated with the current protests, they pounced on any display of dignified protest against the socialist drift in our nation. They sought to explain the Tea Party as a group of angry white people. They talked of the potential for violence in the movement. They didn’t seem to recognize the many faces of the Tea Party, which included minorities fed up with the trashing of our Constitution and the massive debt being accumulated. They searched for violence in the movement but couldn’t find any. Yet the theme remains: these are dangerous people.

I’ve been to a Tea Party event. It was calm and purposeful. The speakers were coherent and principled. They didn’t resort to mindless slogans and chants. I’ve also spoken to a couple of 9/12 Project groups, which are in sync with the Tea Party. The goal of these groups is not to agitate on the streets, call for the killing of government officials with which they disagree, and promote violence. Rather, they seek to educate the public on constitutional thinking. They are performing a public service.

We need to keep in mind the worldview of the majority of our national media. They are in lockstep with the policies of the current administration and are actively working for Obama’s reelection.

The old saying remains true: freedom does require eternal vigilance on our part. I applaud the efforts of Americans who work to reestablish our foundations.

Time, at the end of each year, names its “Person of the Year.” It’s usually a joke. Not intentionally, of course, but a joke nonetheless. This year, Time has done it again. Now I realize the so-called “Person of the Year” isn’t always meant to be an admirable person, but rather the most influential, for good or for ill. However, the magazine consistently uses this attention-getter to highlight its own agenda.

So who is Time’s “Person of the Year” this time around? They chose a movement rather than a single individual. They chose “The Protester.” The focus appears to be on the misnamed Arab Spring and the somewhat brain-impaired Occupy Wall Street crowd. Liberals such as those who run Time think freedom has blossomed in the Arab world. One wonders if they will ever be able to see the forest for all the trees. A rude awakening would be nice, but don’t count on it.

They also were hoping the Occupy Movement would be the Left’s answer to the Tea Party. Well it was, in the only way the Left can operate: imbecilic chants, sit-ins [upgraded to camp-ins], destruction of private property, demands for handouts, and a few murders, rapes, etc. Yes, a truly historic movement. Congratulations, Time, for staying true to your misguided past.

I have a better suggestion for the “Person of the Year.”

The presidential campaign is more than up and running; it’s in high gear. Not only are Republican contenders lining up for the nomination, but President Obama is actively campaigning while officially calling it a “jobs tour.” That way all the taxpayers receive the distinct privilege of paying for it. For Republicans, the goal is clear:

Those who want more fundamental change continue to search for the anti-Romney. They’re not convinced he is the real deal. Yet oddsmakers still put their money on him. Republicans could regret that choice:

I’ll have more to say about that in later posts. The 999 comment, of course, refers to Herman Cain. If he were to get the nomination, that might make it a tad difficult to make the case that Republicans are racist, which is a favorite tactic of the Left:

Cain has been connected to the Tea Party ever since it started. Many in the media are now trying to say that this “occupy” movement is like the Tea Party. Well, there are very few similarities. Even the slogans don’t match:

Not to mention the nature and personal hygiene of the activists. Yet President Obama, on the campaign trail, is now saying, as are many Democrats, that they support the Occupy Wall Street crowd. But there is a disconnect:

By the way, have you heard that the Nazi Party and the Communist Party have officially endorsed Occupy Wall Street? You can know a movement by its supporters.

Herman Cain has been a speaker at Tea Party rallies across the country. You would think that would put to rest the idea that the Tea Party is a racist organization.  But here comes actress Janeane Garofalo, who refuses to bow to the obvious. Instead, she insists,

Herman Cain is probably well liked by some of the Republicans because it hides the racist elements of the Republican Party. Conservative movement and tea party movement, one and the same.

People like Karl Rove like to keep the racism very covert. And so Herman Cain provides this great opportunity so you can say, “Look, this is not a racist, anti-immigrant, anti-female, anti-gay movement. Look, we have a black man.

There’s really not much hope for changing some people’s minds. Their minds are made up; they would rather not be confused by the facts. Ever since the Tucson shooting last January, we’ve been treated to the most mind-boggling exercise in double standards I’ve ever witnessed, at least in the realm of “civil conversation.” The mainstream media hasn’t helped.

We might as well get used to it. It’s not going to change.

There are some statements made by politicians and political activists that I hesitate to comment on, particularly when they are distasteful and/or include wording I wouldn’t ordinarily want to highlight in a blog devoted to Biblical principles. Yet there are times when I feel somewhat forced to say something. This is one of those times.

Two recent rants come readily to mind. The first emanated from Congresswoman Maxine Waters of California. In a speech just over two weeks ago, she railed against the Tea Party. Her precise words?

As far as I’m concerned, the Tea Party can to straight to hell.

Well, the positive side, I guess, is that she at least believes there is such a place. Or am I giving her too much credit for simply using typically inflamed rhetoric?

Civility is breaking out all over the place. Indiana congressman Andre Carson, about a week after Waters’s outburst, did his best to leave her heated rhetoric in the dust with the following analysis:

Some of these folks in Congress would love to see us [African Americans] as second-class citizens. Some of them in Congress right now of this Tea Party movement would love to see you and me . . . hanging on a tree.

This was a broadbrush swipe at a movement whose primary goal is to call the nation back to financial common sense. I’ve been around the Tea Party. I’ve spoken to these groups. Nothing I have ever seen or heard from them smacks of the least bit of racism. Yet when called upon to reflect on his statement and to consider whether he had gone too far, he said he would not take back his words.

Then there was Teamsters president James Hoffa, at a Labor Day rally where President Obama took the stage moments after Hoffa said the following about Tea Party/Republican members of Congress:

Let’s take these sons of bitches out and give America back to an America where we belong.

I have to give credit to a political commentator in the Los Angeles Times who responded in this way:

Let’s assume for a moment, that the son of the still-missing Teamster President Jimmy Hoffa, who was taken out somewhere once never to reappear, was not suggesting the enthusiastic union crowd start dating tea party members. The living Hoffa’s statement doesn’t seem to quite fit Democrat Obama’s past pleas for and promises of a new civility in the nation’s political discourse.

Does anyone recall the feigned outrage over Sarah Palin’s map of America that showed certain districts “targeted” in the 2010 congressional elections. Does anyone recall how she was unjustly blamed for the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson last January? And finally, do we remember all the pious calls for civil discourse pouring from the lips of Democrat politicians? Well, I never took them seriously from the start. And now their hypocrisy is clearly revealed for all to see.

It is not hate speech to disagree publicly with this president’s policies. It is hate speech to tell one’s political opponents to go to hell, to threaten to take them out while using vulgarities to describe them, and to accuse them of wanting to lynch a race of people when there is no evidence of any such desire.

I agree with a call to civility in political discourse. But it can’t be one-sided. Both sides have to adhere to it.

If you are a Democrat, what is your message about the recent downgrade of the nation’s credit rating by S&P? That’s easy. You blame the Tea Party. You know, the ones who warned that an economic apocalypse was coming and that something drastic had to be done to avoid the downgrade. Democrats fear they will be held responsible, what with an added $5 trillion to the national debt in the past two and a half years. And never mind that if the Senate had taken seriously the Cut, Cap, and Balance bill passed by the House, the downgrade never would have occurred. No, circle the wagons and find a scapegoat.

I’ve noticed how coordinated these attacks are: the spokespersons don’t even bother to conceal the concerted effort. David Axelrod and John Kerry used the same terminology on the Sunday talk shows; they called this the Tea Party downgrade. Kerry even went so far as to suggest that the media shouldn’t even allow Tea Party types to have a voice because they are so fringe in their views.

As I noted in yesterday’s post, the rhetoric is outlandish:

Isn’t profiling one of our biggest concerns? Why not apply the term more accurately?

So the entire world waited with anticipation any words from the president that would ease the anxiety. He said nothing over the weekend. Finally, on Monday, he stepped to the podium to make everyone feel better. What did he give us? The same speech he has uttered for the past three years or so: tax the rich; build the infrastructure; set aside the wrangling and partisanship—all the while ignoring the fact that he is the greatest of all partisans and his ideological intransigence is the root of all the wrangling.

His performance had an immediate effect: the stock market plunged just as badly as it had last Thursday. All the gains made in the last year have now been eclipsed. We’re probably as bad off as we’ve been since the panic of late 2008.

So how will Obama spend most of his time now? Running for reelection, of course. Some are already suggesting his slogan for the next run.

Perfect.