When Jonathan Weisman first put his story up on Friday following more Congressional testimony, this is what the headline  and the opening sentence looked like:

Now, notice what Weisman did here: in the HEADLINE and in the OPENING SENTENCE he revealed the MAJOR NEWS that came out of that day’s testimony.  The IG directly contradicted the Obama administration’s claim it had no idea anything was wrong at the IRS or that certain groups and citizens were being targeted for harassment due to ‘incorrect’ political beliefs.

In other words, WEISMAN DID WHAT A REPORTER IS SUPPOSED TO DO.  He led with the news and made it easy to see.

Well that really bothered somebody higher up, who decided that Weisman’s piece was ‘incomplete’ and needed some ‘massaging’ to bring out the REAL STORY.

Take a look at what Weisman’s original piece was turned into after it was helpfully ‘edited’ by Jeremy W. Peters:

Hello! I’m Jeremy Peters, the Political Morale Officer

here at the NYT’s!  I see Jonathan left the real news out of his article!

No problem, I can fix that!

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/18/us/politics/irs-scandal-congressional-hearings.html?_r=0

As you can see, Jeremy W. Peters knew EXACTLY what Weisman’s article needed; the real story is about the REPUBLICANS trying to use this breaking scandal for their own political benefit.

So how could Weisman have left out the word ‘Republicans’ in the headline? How could he have not inserted Republican attempts to enlarge the scandal to score political points against the White House in the very first sentence?  Well Peters made sure those were the very first things that got changed.

Peters must have also wondered: Hey Johnathan, WTF? Why are you LEADING with the IG’s testimony that he informed top administration officials of the scandal back in 2012?  Don’t you realize this directly contradicts what Obama & the administration spent all this week claiming? Why the bloody blue hell would you make THAT the lede?  Are you seriously trying to give your readers the sense there’s a REAL scandal here instead of just another political witchhunt?  No man, you gotta BURY that crap and  hide it way further down in the story like this: 

Weisman’s original opening sentence:

What Peter’s butchered it into way down in the 9th paragraph:

See Johnathan? THAT’S how it’s done, bro!  You change it from ‘senior Treasury officials’, which reveals a bunch of top Administration people knew, to just the ‘Treasury’s general counsel’, a single person.  It’s important to give the present administration as much cover as you can! Are you taking notes, bro?

In the USSR’s military, there was the military commander and then there was the ‘Morale Officer’ which is a kind way of saying Communist Party hack.  The military commander would make decisions and then would have to run them by the Morale Officer first for approval.  That often meant sound military decisions were changed and suborned to stupid party ideology.

How is what Peters did to Weisman’s article any different?  Sound reporting was ‘massaged’ until it reflected Party Ideology.  There is no way anybody can call that revised article anything but propaganda.

Read about him being trashed here in PJ Media by Tom Blumer.

Pelley’s speech is here; his part begins after 14 minutes in. “Amateur journalists became digital vigilantes” after the Boston bombings by the Tsarnaev jihadists. Shame, shame!

But apart from its sheer depravity, what also  depresses me about this case is the widespread refusal to face up to its hard  realities.

The fact is that the vicious activities of  the Oxford ring are bound up with religion and race: religion, because all the  perpetrators, though they had different nationalities, were Muslim; and race,  because they deliberately targeted vulnerable white girls, whom they appeared to  regard as ‘easy meat’, to use one of their revealing, racist phrases.

Indeed, one of the victims who bravely gave  evidence in court told a newspaper afterwards that ‘the men exclusively wanted  white girls to abuse’.

But as so often in fearful, politically  correct modern Britain, there is a craven unwillingness to face up to this  reality.

Commentators and poli-ticians tip-toe around  it, hiding behind weasel words.

We are told that child sex abuse happens ‘in  all communities’, that white men are really far more likely to be abusers, as  has been shown by the fall-out from the Jimmy Savile case.

One particularly misguided commentary argued  that the predators’ religion was an irrelevance, for what really mattered was  that most of them worked in the night-time economy as taxi drivers, just as in  the Rochdale child sex scandal many of the abusers worked in kebab houses, so  they had far more opportunities to target vulnerable girls.

‘As so often in fearful, politically correct modern  Britain, there is a craven unwillingness to face up to the reality that their  actions are tied up with religion and race’

But all this is deluded nonsense. While it  is, of course, true that abuse happens in all communities, no amount of  obfuscation can hide the pattern that has been exposed in a series of recent  chilling scandals, from Rochdale to Oxford, and Telford to Derby.

 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2325185/The-Oxford-sex-ring-preachers-teach-young-Muslim-men-white-girls-cheap.html#ixzz2TTE35400 Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Researchers found that men’s opinions on redistribution of wealth could be predicted by their upper body strength, with powerful men more likely to take a conservative stance of protecting their own interests.

In contrast men who were just as wealthy but were of a flimsier build were less opposed to policies like those of Labour leader Ed Miliband, which would involve surrendering some of their wealth to society.

The scientists, from Aarhus University in Denmark, analysed the wealth, bicep size and views on economic redistribution of hundreds of men in America, Denmark and Argentina.

They found that wealthy men with strong arms were less likely to support economic redistribution, or the fairer sharing of wealth among society, and unsurprisingly strong men with less money supported the policy.

But among physically weaker men, the pattern was reversed. Those with plenty of money were less opposed to redistributing it, while those who were poorer were less supportive.

Islamism accurately indicates an Islamic-flavored version of radical utopianism, an -ism like other -isms, comparable to fascism and communism. Aping those two movements, for example, Islamism relies heavily on conspiracy theories to interpret the world, on the state to advance its ambitions, and on brutal means to attain its goals.

Supported by 10-15 percent of Muslims, Islamism draws on devoted and skilled cadres who have an impact far beyond their limited numbers. It poses the threat to civilized life in Iran, Egypt, and not just on the streets of Boston but also in Western schools, parliaments, and courtrooms.

Our killer question is “How do you propose to defeat Islamism?” Those who make all Islam their enemy not only succumb to a simplistic and essentialist illusion but they lack any mechanism to defeat it. We who focus on Islamism see World War II and the Cold War as models for subduing the third totalitarianism. We understand that radical Islam is the problem and moderate Islam is the solution. We work with anti-Islamist Muslims to vanquish a common scourge. We will triumph over this new variant of barbarism so that a modern form of Islam can emerge.

1. I do not propose to make Islam my enemy; Islam has made me its enemy; I have no choice in my heretical and subordinate status under Mohammed’s religion.

2. While Islamist ideology is attractive to some 10-15% of Muslims, we do not know at any time which 10-15% are atracted to it. A man might go through his jihadist period and renounce it in later age, as he matures. Neither is the distinction denominational. Muslims do not segregate themselves into Islamist mosques and Islamic mosques. Even to say so exposes the fact that the distinction is something adjectival, something we feel the need to make, not something inherent in the religion.

3. I think we gain greater clarity about Islam when we frankly admit its doctrines call for our suppression, enslavement, and eradication. It is like rabies; where we know the population is susceptible but we do not know which of its victims has been bitten. We know for sure that, having joined the Party, so to speak, they are more inclined (statistically) to violent rejection of their non-Muslim surrounding society than others.

4. At a basic level of male behaviour, non-Muslims adolescent and young men go on a tear, wrap a car around a tree, drink themsleves into oblivion, rob a store, do drugs, join ludicrous protest groups, but, on the whole, do not seek to destroy the society around them with explosives and massacres. Muslim males have before them the ready-made excuse and legitimation of jihad.

I do not think there is much difference between me and Daniel Pipes in terms of actual measures we would take to suppress the jihaddicts, oops, jihadists in the world. But, my lingering concern with people such as Pipes is that they would seek to suppress frank discussion of Islam in the name of social peace.

Robert Spencer say it well.

And this is a key point: if Wafa Sultan and Ayaan Hirsi Ali (both, not incidentally, ex-Muslims) are right that there is a “consistency from Muhammad’s life and the contents of the Koran and Hadith to current Muslim practice,” and they most certainly are, as Daniel Pipes apparently acknowledges when he says that “certain continuities do exist, and Islamists definitely follow the Koran and Hadith literally,” then attempts to prescind from Qur’anic literalism in order to reform Islam and create a more peaceful version of the faith will always be challenged by the literalists (who are and have always been the mainstream in Islam) as heretics and apostates.

Update: Yeah we knew that. Amateur hour.

The government is simply too big for President Obama to keep track of all the wrongdoing taking place on his watch, his former senior adviser, David Axelrod, told MSNBC. “Part of being president is there’s so much beneath you that you can’t know because the government is so vast,” he explained.

In an another time, way back 1974, one of the Articles of Impeachment included the following.

He has, acting personally and through his subordinates and agents, endeavoured to obtain from the Internal Revenue Service, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, confidential information contained in income tax returns for purposed not authorized by law, and to cause, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, income tax audits or other income tax investigations to be intitiated or conducted in a discriminatory manner.

Detroit insolvent

Mayhem at Mother’s Day parade in New Orleans

Jason Richwine canned from Heritage Foundation for accurate descriptions of Mexican-American intelligence levels in a PhD thesis of years back

Obama regime considers forbidding Christians to proselytize within US Army,  and so forth;

as Western society drops its ideological and religious antibodies, declaring them to be racist, sexist, homophobic etc., and I wonder, what will fill the vacuum? Islam?

Here we are, making our societies deliberately less intelligent, and forbidding discussion of it; making our societies so tolerant we lose any sight of permanent moral realities; absorbing underclass behaviour and saying white people cause it through bad thoughts, rather than black people causing it through total lack of thoughts; dropping standards because they derive from European civilization, or because they are Christian, or because their existence implies that moral standards exist at all, or that they exclude people who would rather be ruthlessly intolerant, exclusivist, and hate-filled from full and equal participation in liberal society’s rich banquet.

Why are we doing this?

More relevant, perhaps, is the approach of the commentariat on those who would draw attention to the permanence and reality of racial, ethnic, religious, sexual, and cultural divisions. The latter are the new witches. They cast spells of racism, sexism and homophobia, and much else besides. They must cause the underperformance or bad behaviour  of the groups they describe. Clearly, since all different outcomes are the result, not of any kind of innate or persistence differences among groups, but of social causes, then the people who draw attention to these moral standards, innate or persistent differences, and who refuse to believe in unqualified human equality must be causing the problem. Witches!Burn them!

The modern cultural marxist commentariat is reduced to believing in white witches, rather than change their thinking. Why should they, when the science is settled, there is only one politically correct view of anything, and they control the courts, the universities, and all the pulpits that matter.

Discovery of this PhD thesis in the context of Heritage Foundation’s opposition to the immigration reform bill has led to his resignation from the Heritage Foundation.

The commentary on the Richwine case from Peter Brimelow’s Vdare concluded as follows:

Earlier this week, I was talking to a Harvard academic who is familiar with Richwine’s work. He commented that there were simply some subjects the study of which is incompatible with an academic career.

“That’s a remarkable thing in a free country,” I said.

“This isn’t a free country,” he replied.

Writing in American Renaissance, Jared Taylor said:

In yet another act of cowardice, a “conservative” institution has fired someone from saying something that is not only true, but that everyone knows to be true. This time the Heritage Foundation joined the ranks of the lickspittles by forcing out a senior researcher, Jason Richwine. Mr. Richwine, who co-authored the Heritage’s recently released report on the costs of amnesty, had written his Harvard PhD thesis on the implications of racial differences in IQ for immigration policy—and racial differences in IQ have such obvious policy implications that a “think tank” dare not think about them.

There is no need to repeat the things that have been said by Mr. Richwine’s attackers. They are just as gloatingly idiotic as you would imagine. It is far more important to point out that Mr. Richwine had important defenders—but Heritage still folded. And what makes its behavior particularly revolting is that the people who run it knew about Mr. Richwine’s dissertation ever since they hired him two years ago. It is hard to imagine more craven behavior.

Elspeth Reeve in the Atlantic attempts to explain why Richwine is wrong, and not merely racist.

The idea that Latinos won’t assimilate because they’re doomed to low IQs for generations is offensive. But so what? More important, it’s wrong. At least half of the variation in IQ is inherited, The Wall Street Journal explained in January, but scientists haven’t figured out which genes affect IQ. And even more important for today’s political debate, Latinos are assimilating. The New York Times‘s David Leonhardt explained in April that Latinos are assimilating at about the same rate as earlier immigrant groups — they’re “the New Italians,” he said. As with Italians, a huge wave of Latinos immigrated here poor, poorly educated, and culturally different. But they become richer and better educated with each generation. RAND Corporation economist James P. Smith found that the average Latino immigrant has a junior high education, but the average Latino immigrant’s kid goes to college for almost a year, and the average Latino immigrant’s grandkid stays in college longer.

Reeve misses the point in three important ways. First, the argument of Richwine is not that Latinos will not assimilate, it is that they are less intelligent, and therefore will be less productive in the long run than, say, immigrants of higher average intelligence. As a matter of fact, Richwine was proposing intelligence test for immigrants be part of the criteria for acceptance into the United States, so that no one would be discriminated against because of racial or ethnic averages. Second, the notion that scientists have not figured out which genes affect intelligence, if true, is wholly beside any point being made by Richwine or any one else. Third, the fact that half of intelligence is hereditary, aside from underestimating the proportion attributable to genetics (it is about 70-80%), means that, over time, increasing the proportion of Latinos in the American mix will lower the average intelligence as opposed to what would happen if immigration policy favoured people of higher intelligence, such as north Asians, or people of average intelligence, such as whites.

No American I know who has experienced Latino working habits has a bad word to say about Latinos. They show up, they work hard, and they keep their families together. Again, that is not the point anyone is making. We are talking about immigration policy, which determines who your neighbours will be in thirty, forty, or fifty years.

Once more it has been made dangerous to your life and livelihood to say true things based on indisputable statistical facts.

It is not a free country.