The IRS Scandal

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling last Monday that may not have garnered a lot of public attention.  Critics of the decision will complain that, like the ongoing Benghazi hearings, the IRS scandal is much ado about nothing.  But like their complaints about the Benghazi situation, these critics refuse to acknowledge that the emperor isn't wearing any clothing.

The decision boils down to one line of the opinion for me:

Section 6103 was enacted to protect taxpayers from the IRS, not the IRS from taxpayers.

At issue is 26 U.S.C. §6103.  That statute governs returns and return information that is to be held confidential.  The historical underpinnings behind that statute are lengthy, but the germane part of that history involves former President Nixon who used tax information against political opponents.  As most people are aware, the present-day IRS scandal involves the IRS putting conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status through so many hurdles and hoops so as to discourage them from continuing on with the process, thereby hamstringing them for elections in 2010 and 2012.  The outrages are well known:  onerous demands for documentation, frivolous requests for meaningless information, visits from other governmental agencies based on false complaints, years of non-responsiveness, etc.  The chilling effect of the IRS's actions is overwhelming.  Finally, an outfit called NorCal Tea Party Patriots had enough with the IRS's BOLO program -- Be On the Lookout -- that effectively neutralized conservative political action during midterm and presidential elections during President Obama's first term.

The appeals court wasn't buying what the government was selling:  That the plaintiff's discovery requests were barred by section 6103's requirements of confidentiality.  Any attorney worth his salt could see through the red herring:  Section 6103 deals with returns and return information; the discovery requests had to do with applications, applications that, obviously, were never processed because of the demands from the IRS for a neverending stream of information, most of which had nothing to do with the group or its cause.

The Sixth Circuit was more diplomatic than I would have been.  It ended its opinion thus:

In closing, we echo the district court’s observations about this case. The lawyers in the

Department of Justice have a long and storied tradition of defending the nation’s interests and

enforcing its laws—all of them, not just selective ones—in a manner worthy of the Department’s

name. The conduct of the IRS’s attorneys in the district court falls outside that tradition. We

expect that the IRS will do better going forward. And we order that the IRS comply with the

district court’s discovery orders of April 1 and June 16, 2015—without redactions, and without

further delay.

The petition is denied.
 No matter what good it's done in the past, the IRS is dead wrong in this instance.  Not only was it engaged in political activity but it ignored two federal court orders while it continued to delay and demur.  Even if it ultimately concedes and produces the documentation that will almost certainly prove that it had a political agenda -- why else would it fight so hard to release this information? -- the net effect is to delay the establishment of these organizations long enough so that they aren't able to get donations to allow them to put out their political message, i.e., free speech, in time for the next election.

What's particularly irksome about this is that the IRS is part of the Department of the Treasury which, as a cabinet level position, forms part of the Executive Branch.  That's right.  Mr. Obama, were he so inclined, could order the IRS to release the documents sought by the plaintiffs, but he's already on record as saying that the IRS did nothing wrong.  Having already determined the culpability of the IRS as being non-existent, it's unlikely he will do the right thing and order the IRS to release the documents.

In the meantime, the time the IRS has bought by dragging its heals, filing frivolous appeals and prevaricating has allowed it to cull its files of damaging emails, memoranda and other documents.  Call me cynical, but I don't see how that hasn't happened.  If, on the other hand, I'm wrong and there still remains plenty of damning documents, President Obama's legacy -- already tarnished by so many scandals -- will almost guarantee that he goes down as the worst president in the history of the Republic.

Give Lois Lerner credit for this:  At least she pleaded the Fifth.

(c) 2016 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles

Liberal Dissent

The primaries are winding down and it would appear that we're headed for a Trump v. Cankles showdown, unless the Republican establishment throws the convention into turmoil with brokering.  Obviously, for any American who loves his country this is not an optimal situation.

In the meantime, it's quite interesting watching people rail against Mr. Trump.  Make no mistake:  Mr. Trump revels in making intemperate and injudicious comments that only serve to offend a lot of people.  Still, unless his speech is seditious or otherwise inflammatory to the point that imminent bodily injury may occur, Mr. Trump's speech is protected.  Keep in mind:  His right is protected only from government infringement by the First Amendment.  Those who wish to silence him by obstructing him know this and are trying to use this loophole to their advantage.

In the first place, I believe this is backfiring.  By using such tactics are shouting at him, obstructing people from attending his rallies and branding him a racist, the dissenters are encouraging more people to align themselves with Mr. Trump simply because not to be with him means that one agrees with the dissenters, and there's a sizeable portion of the population that finds these tactics un-American.  The dissenters probably see themselves as heirs of dissenters in pre-war Nazi Germany who, they believe, didn't do enough to stop the dictator from unleashing his brand of terror on their country and the world which, in turn, justifies their actions.

Leaving aside for a moment the question of whether Mr. Trump is this century's Hitler, the tactics being employed are interesting for a couple of different reasons.  First, shouting down a speaker and trying to disrupt a political event because one disagrees with the speaker isn't exactly emblematic of tolerance.  Intolerant behavior is not the same as dissent.  The glue that holds together the Republic is the free and robust exchange of opposing ideas to distil which idea is best for the country and her citizens.  Ironically, these liberal zealots who want free everything deny the very same thing to Mr. Trump because they disagree with him and in so doing liken themselves more to the Islamofascists who would sooner cut off their heads than allow them to continue with their antics.

Civil disobedience has a long and treasured history in this country.  What the likes of Martin Luther King, Jr., did in opposing discrimination is unlike what these political wannabes are doing.  Storming the dais, taking the microphone, blocking access to an event, engaging in violence with members of the opposing group -- how does this show that the opposing viewpoint is superior to that which is being aired?  This is especially telling when compared to what isn't happening on the other side.

When Cankles or Bernie Sanders talks, there may be a boo here and a hiss there.  Unlikely, but possible.  When's the last time people have stormed the stage a la the Black Lives Matter sect, or prevented people from entering a venue, or stormed into the crowd to engage in fisticuffs with their opponents?  Conservatives have their younger members, yet the behavior is markedly better than that of young liberals.  Conservatives are noted for being gunowners, yet no liberal's been threatened by a gun, much less shot.  Imagine what would happen if liberals owned guns like conservatives do...

...The point is very clear:  Liberals don't dissent in a responsible, mature fashion.  They act like petulant children who are told they have to go to bed and don't want to go to bed.  That the majority of them support Mr. Sanders is to be expected.  Just this week, the darling of the Left, Lena Dunham, complained that she's been treated more harshly by Sanders' supporters than by right-wingers for her support for Cankles.  That's quite telling, when someone who is virulently anti-conservative actually calls out someone for being ruder than a conservative.

Again, this is unlikely to change anytime soon.  The only hope is that both sides show little tolerance for this immature, sophomoric behavior.  Anyone who's had child knows that at times the child has to be left to cry or that child will always cry to get whatever it wants instead of growing up and learning how to deal with reverses.  That grown adults still tolerate such behavior is unacceptable.  That the MSM rewards such behavior under the guise of journalism is to be expected.

The election can't happen fast enough.  Then again, should Mr. Trump win, it'll be interesting to see how these protesters deal with the Secret Service and myriad law enforcement agencies when they try to rush the stage or block access to a venue for the President's motorcade.

(c) 2016 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles

10 Cloverfield Lane

Karen and I had seen the previews for 10 Cloverfield Lane and thought it might be worth checking out.  The reviews were favorable and Karen wanted to get out after a winter of cabin fever, so we decided to check out the movie.

The last scary movie we'd seen was The Conjuring that left both of us laughing.  Perhaps it's our advanced years, but we just have a higher threshold for movies that want to frighten and impress us.  Cloverfield is really two movies: One very good one and one...well, you be the judge.

The movie starts very quietly with some ingénue wannabe fashion designer who is leaving her fiancé.  We aren't told why, it's just that she's had enough.  She packs up her meager belongings, leaves her engagement ring on the counter and grabs a bottle of booze.  That they show her taking the bottle of booze portends something important, to be sure.

She drives from some unnamed urban area to the sticks and gets a call from her betrothed.  She listens to him and hangs up, then puts his return call to voice mail.  In the darkening night she stops at a gas station and sees a large vehicle pull up in the pump bay behind her, taking notice of the vehicle but not identifying anyone.

The next scene has her driving somewhere in the country listening to music when all of a sudden she's T-boned (the effect is somewhat startling) and ends up in a ditch.  The camera views the wreckage from above and then cuts to a leg in some sort of medical restraint chained to a rail in a cinderblock cell.  It's obvious our ingénue isn't in a hospital.  After she gets her bearings, in walks her protector/jailer Howard played by John Goodman.  Mr. Goodman does a great job portraying someone who's just slightly...off...or is he?  The open question that is never quite answered is whether he's an unbalanced survivalist or a lunatic rapist.  The movie never answers the question straightforwardly, and that's well-done.  To reveal more is to give away the best part of the movie, because for as long as our girl is underground, the movie's quite interesting.

The action picks up when Michelle -- I forgot her name -- meets another denizen of the deep, Emmett.  Emmett has an arm in a sling.  He apparently had to beg Howard to let him into the bomb shelter which, if I'm not mistaken, he helped Howard build.  Emmett's just goofy, but in a good-natured way.  There's never a romance between Emmett and Michelle, although Howard becomes jealous of Emmett.

To go into what else happens in the shelter between Michelle, Emmett and Howard would ruin the good part of the movie.  Needless to say, the twists and turns are at once subtle and jarring.  Had the movie continued down this path, it would have been great.  Unfortunately, it veered into the absurd.

The one revelation that's necessary at this point is when Michelle tried to escape the bunker, only to be confronted by some woman on the outside pounding on the door to be let in.  The woman's face is damaged by something -- gas?  chemicals?  fire? -- and Michelle, at Howard's urging, doesn't let her in.  The question that the three subterranean dwellers ponder is whether an invasion has occurred, and whether it's an invasion of man or alien.  The woman's appearance at the door doesn't clarify this but drives the question even more.

Finally, Michelle gets out.  As she's liberated from her jail below ground, she sees what looks like a spaceship out over the cornfields that surround the shelter.  Sure enough, tentacle-like extremities come out of the ship and blobs are seen in the distance going down the tentacles.  Think seeing a snake eating a rodent.  Michelle, now that one question is answered, ponders her next move, but can't find the keys to Howard's truck before these large, oversized maggots with eel-like mouths track her.  She manages to drive them off and then runs to the house at 10 Cloverfield Lane, where the spaceship looms over the house and follows Michelle as she runs to Howard's truck.  Fumbling for the keys she and the truck are taken by the ship's tentacles upward to the widening maw of the spaceship where an even larger eel mouth awaits.  Michelle -- who by this time has proven herself to be a new age MacGyver -- Yves. St. MacGyver -- resourcefully reaches for that bottle of booze that she took from her home with the ex-fiancé that miraculously survived the crash  and fashions a Molotov cocktail which she lights just in time to throw it into the now-gaping piehole of the spaceship cum alien being.  Not surprisingly, the bomb explodes and kills the spaceship.  Despite the fact that Michelle in Howard's truck is directly beneath the exploding alien ship, she merely drops to the ground with no alien shrapnel or detritus from the ship falling directly down on her.  She scuttles away with nary a cut or a bruise and finds the keys to the car of the woman who died at the hands of the aliens and leaves 10 Cloverfield Lane.  As she turns on the radio, the emergency broadcast system is in full swing, alerting anyone who's out there that safety can be found north of Baton Rouge.  Turning the dial, she comes upon another message that tells anyone listening that the good fight is being made in Houston and that reserves would be really useful.  Dramatically, Michelle stops the car, backs it up past the sign pointing to Baton Rouge and turns toward Houston, with the movie ending.

Forget suspending disbelief.  Verisimilitude?  Not a chance.  But if, like me, you're left shaking your head by the movie, prepare to be chastised:

http://www.theverge.com/2016/3/17/11255744/10-cloverfield-lane-movie-ending-backlash

That's right.  We're all missing the point.

Had the movie ended with Michelle leaving the bunker and discovering the true story behind Howard, it would have been a better movie.  The need to inject alien beings was ridiculous.  Yet this movie is getting all sorts of critical praise.

I can't believe people get paid to make movies like this.  The sad thing is the confusion and utter cockamamieness of the movie only serve to diminish the fine acting Mr. Goodman gave in this movie. 

To have oversized maggots with eel-like teeth steal his thunder was simply wrong. 

That they also stole our $12 was unforgivable.

(c) 2016 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles

Establishment Politics

Now that Super Tuesday's behind us and the primaries are coming into sharper focus, the Republican establishment is hell-bent to act like its Democratic counterpart and dictate who should be its nominee for the Presidency.  Unlike the Democrats, who seem to prefer to give an advantage to a particular person through unorthodox voting, the Republicans have hewn to the more traditional one person, one vote concept, without any special add-ons.  That is, until the interloper Donald Trump upset their party.

Make no mistake:  I'm not one of the besotted many who think Mr. Trump is the answer to all our prayers.  What I like about him is that he speaks his -- and, in is increasingly the case, that of many -- mind about anything without a filter.  I like that he's not a part of the Beltway.  But that's about it.

He has no defined plans.  He is uncouth.  He's a bully.  He's a braggart.  He's many unseemly things.

But he's not Cankles.

Apparently, the suicidally-inclined Republicans don't care.  They want one of their own as their nominee fearful of the shame and embarrassment Mr. Trump may cause them (apparently, they don't own mirrors) or that he may lose to Cankles or both.  I suppose any of these options is possible, but the truth of the matter is not one of them really matters in this discussion.  There is only one issue that matters and Republicans are engaging in their own brand of cognitive dissonance by ignoring it.

The people want Mr. Trump to run against Cankles.

I suppose there could be conspiracies that explain Mr. Trump's rise in the primaries:  Perhaps he's bought people off, perhaps Democrats are voting for him in open primaries knowing that Cankles is going to win the Democratic nod thanks to their weird voting.  Or perhaps every voter has had a stroke and Trump's name is just easier to remember.

But the people are voting for Mr. Trump, and the Republicans look like fools for trying to derail him.

Trotting out the attack dog Marco Rubio, who stands no chance of winning this year, is ridiculous.  It's just as bad for Mr. Rubio, who may not have won this year but who could have built a platform for future elections, given his relative youth.  Having Mitt Romney enter the fray, after he wilted against President Obama after destroying him in their first debate, is laughable.  Wags are noting that the Republicans and Mr. Romney in particular are fighting harder against Mr. Trump than any of them ever fought against President Obama.  Career suicides aren't supposed to be this pathetic.

Ted Cruz is an outsider, sort of.  He's a U.S. senator, but he rankles the establishment by his calls to do things the establishment would rather not do.  He may himself have a birther issue, but at least he's not as bombastic as Mr. Trump.  For the establishment, he's a more acceptable alternative, a lesser-of-two-evils choice to Mr. Trump.  John Kasich is a governor, so he's part of the establishment, but he's an outlier because he's not in Washington.

Perhaps Plato was right.  At least that's what the establishment seems to think.  But the Republican party has no one but itself to blame:  It allowed Mr. Trump to run as a Republican.  I'm not sure what could have been done to prevent him from running as a Republican, but it would seem that the party is Dr. Frankenstein and Mr. Trump is its monster.

Again, if it comes down to it, I will vote for Mr. Trump instead of Cankles.  I believe that, like President Bush the son, he'll at least surround himself with knowledgeable people.  Likewise, Congress can restrain his more impulsive actions with its power of the purse.  The Supreme Court, also, as it's been doing with the present President, can rein him in should he veer out of the constitutional lane.  The same could be done with Cankles, true, but there's a huge difference between her and Mr. Trump.  She's a liar, a cheat and a thief.  Mr. Trump is just overwhelmingly obnoxious.

It's a sad commentary when the electorate has to choose between the lesser of two evils, but this is where we're at.

The Republican party, however, had the chance to restrict those who would run as their candidates.  That it allowed Mr. Trump to be one of their candidates is its fault and the fault of no one else. 

(c) 2016 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles