If this story doesn’t end up impacting the 2016 presidential election, then I am going to call shenanigans on the political process. And you should too:

The State Department, under Secretary Hillary Rodham Clinton, created an arrangement for her longtime aide and confidante Huma Abedin to work for private clients as a consultant while serving as a top adviser in the department.

Ms. Abedin did not disclose the arrangement — or how much income she earned — on her financial report. It requires officials to make public any significant sources of income. An adviser to Mrs. Clinton, Philippe Reines, said that Ms. Abedin was not obligated to do so.

The disclosure of the agreement that Ms. Abedin made with the State Department comes as her husband, former Representative Anthony D. Weiner, a Democrat, prepares for a mayoral run in New York City. Politico reported the arrangement on Thursday afternoon.

Ms. Abedin declined a request for an interview, but the picture that emerges from interviews and records suggests a situation where the lines were blurred between Ms. Abedin’s work in the high echelons of one of the government’s most sensitive executive departments and her role as a Clinton family insider.

While continuing her work at the State Department, in the latter half of 2012, she also worked for Teneo, a strategic consulting firm, which was founded by Doug Band, a former adviser to President Bill Clinton. Teneo has advised corporate clients like Coca-Cola and MF Global, the collapsed brokerage firm run by Jon S. Corzine, a former governor of New Jersey.

At the same time, Ms. Abedin served as a consultant to the William Jefferson Clinton Foundation and worked in a personal capacity for Mrs. Clinton as she prepared to transition out of her job as secretary of state.

It is not clear what role Mrs. Clinton played in approving the arrangement. Some good-government groups have been critical of such situations, saying public employees’ loyalty should be solely to the public and their government work, rather than private firms and figures.

I’ve gotten used to the notion of a revolving door between the public and the private sectors. I don’t much have a problem with the presence of that revolving door; after years in government, it makes sense that people who serve the country may eventually have to go into the private sector to make the money they weren’t making as public servants. Many of those people have families to take care of and kids’ college tuitions to worry about, after all. But I never thought that we would do away with even the pretense of a revolving door by allowing public servants to make money on the side from the private sector while they are ostensibly supposed to be devoting their waking hours to serving the American people.

Hillary Clinton appears to be up to her neck on this issue, as does the Clinton Foundation. Both she and the people who run the foundation ought to answer questions regarding Huma Abedin’s special arrangement. And if Hillary Clinton cannot answer those questions, then in the event that she runs for president, we ought to wonder whether she has the judgment and the ethics to serve honorably in the White House. Oh, and if Anthony Weiner really does end up running for mayor of New York, he might well have more than just some errant tweets to haunt his campaign.

Tomorrow morning Amity Shlaes, author of Coolidge, will be joining me here at Stanford to record an episode of Uncommon Knowledge.  Amity’s book represents a high achievement:  an entirely successful attempt to combine portraiture with historical and economic analysis—and to demonstrate the relevance of the Coolidge agenda of some nine decades ago to the American predicament today.  Completely engrossing—a serious lesson, but also a total delight.

To whet the appetite:

Coolidge served for sixty-seven months, finishing out Harding’s term after Harding died in early August 1923 [Coolidge had been elected vice president on the Harding ticket in 1920] and remaining until early March 1929.

Under Coolidge, the federal debt fell.  Under Coolidge, the top income tax rate came down by half, to 25 percent.  Under Coolidge, the federal budget was always in surplus.  Under Coolidge, unemployment was 5 percent or even 3 percent….

When in 1929 the thirtieth president climbed onto a train a Union Station to head back home to Massachusetts after his sixty-seven months in office, the federal government was smaller than when he had become president in 1923….

Whereas other presidents made themselves omnipresent, Coolidge held back.  At the time, and subsequently, many have deemed the Coolidge method laziness.  Upon examination, however, the inaction reflects strength.  In politics as in business, it is often harder, after all, not to do, to delegate, than to do.  Coolidge is our great refrainer.

She writes:

This isn't about differences of opinion on the war on terror.  It's about pure, raw, election politics, and calculus about headlines, and counting votes, and the fear it will look bad if Osama bin Laden's death didn't solve very much at all.

There is no politician in America who has the right to sacrifice another man's life to avoid a difficult headline.

Just so.  Read the whole thing.

The unfolding of the Obama Administration's aggressive attitude towards the media continues to reveal the same sorry themes as the other scandals erupting inside the Beltway. 

The first is partisanship. This weekend came news that the Justice Department conducted an invasive investigation into the daily activities of Fox News reporter James Rosen, to the point where the Department judged him a "conspirator" in violating the laws against leaking classified information. Does anyone recall a similar pursuit of New York Times and Washington Post reporters during the Bush years? No? I didn't think so. Both outlets published extremely sensitive classified information that harmed our national security during the Bush years, and in the last five years both papers have published sensitive information on the operation of the drone programs and the bin Laden killing.

To an outside observer, it appears that the Obama Justice Department has selected for investigation the media outlets whose editorial views are most hostile to its political leaders while giving a pass to friendly organizations that might have published leaks that benefit the White House.

The second theme is the lack of adult supervision over the most important functions of the U.S. government. I am sure that, in all of these cases, there were career prosecutors who would like to have pursued the media. It is the job of the political appointees in any administration to stop cases that -- while they might fall within the letter of the law -- make terrible sense in terms of the use of the executive branch's resources or of broader values that might not occur to career civil servants. 

The fact that the political leadership of the Obama Justice Department must have signed off on this investigation shows how mediocre the appointees in the Department have become. On the other hand, if the Obama folks blame it all on the career prosecutors, it shows that their appointees cannot even do their job of managing the department. The fact that this negligence has occurred in one of the executive branch's most important, unique functions -- investigating and prosecuting crime -- only raises deeper doubts that this administration cannot manage the government competently.

In the Bush administration, there were some who wanted to pursue the media over classified leaking. I, for one, thought that these proposals were ill-conceived and raised problems under the First Amendment's protection for a free press. I don't believe that the Bush Justice Department -- allegedly so hostile to civil liberties -- undertook any of them. The only example I can think of was the independent counsel investigation into the leaking of Valerie Plame's identity to the press, which only went to show how bad an idea most independent counsel investigations are. Only the Obama administration has authorized tailing reporters, monitoring their phone calls and emails, and surveilling their sources. 

Add up all the recent scandals and the message is clear: the Obama Administration is showing that it cannot be trusted with the basic functions of government -- law enforcement (surveillance of reporters), taxation (IRS scandals), and national security (Benghazi).

Democrats and Republicans agree on only one thing these days: Justin Bieber. The LA Times reports:

A majority of Democrats (23% favorable-54% unfavorable), Republicans (17%-52%), and independents (18%-56%) all bagged on the Biebs.

It took a Canadian pop star to bring this country together.

Take a long look at this photo and ask yourself: Is this the price of national unity?

At the Billboard Music Awards last night, Mr. Bieber opened his mouth and this came out:

"This is not a gimmick. I'm an artist and I should be taken seriously and all this other bull should not be spoken of. I want to thank my manager, Scooter Braun. I want to thank my family at home. I want to thank my mother, my father. I want to thank Jesus Christ."

When an E! Network reporter contacted Jesus Christ late last night asking if he cared to comment, the LORD reportedly said: "No, I just can't."

From Fox News:

The Justice Department obtained a portfolio of information about a Fox News correspondent's conversations and visits as part of an investigation into a possible leak, The Washington Post reported Monday -- in the latest example of the government seizing records of journalists. 

This follows the charge that the department secretly obtained two months of phone records from Associated Press journalists as part of a separate leak probe. The department in this case, though, went a step further, as an FBI agent reportedly claimed there's evidence the journalist in question -- Fox News' James Rosen -- broke the law "at the very least, either as an aider, abettor and/or co-conspirator." 

That detail would potentially send the case into unprecedented territory. No reporter has been prosecuted for seeking information. Such cases often target the suspected leaker, but not the journalist who published sensitive or classified information. 

...

In the case involving Rosen, a government adviser was accused of leaking information after a 2009 story was published online which said North Korea planned to respond to looming U.N. sanctions with another nuclear test. 

The Post reported that federal investigators, in pursuing the case, obtained email records from Rosen -- but also records of his visits to the State Department headquarters by tracking security-badge information. According to the article, a court affidavit said they used the badge records to log his visits as well as the movements of the adviser, Stephen Jim-Woo Kim. 

An FBI agent said in the affidavit that the visits suggested a "face-to-face" meeting. 

The documents reportedly show investigators seized two days of Rosen's personal emails, including exchanges with Kim, as well as two months of phone records from Kim's office.

Asked about the story, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney only noted that it was an "ongoing criminal investigation" and that President Obama is a "firm defender of the First Amendment and freedom of the press."

And no, there is no third option. Today's Supreme Court decision in Arlington v. FCC involves a basic question: who gets to determine the scope of a federal agency's power: the agency itself, or the courts? On this question, the Court's conservative bloc split in two. Justice Scalia, writing for a majority that included Justice Thomas, held that federal courts must defer to the decisions of administrative agencies -- even when those agencies make decisions about the scope of their own power. 

The dissent, penned by Chief Justice Roberts, joined by Kennedy and Alito, argues that even though courts may show deference to the substantive decisions of agencies (this is known as "Chevron deference" after a 1984 decision involving that company), courts do not have to defer to agency decisions setting their own jurisdiction. In his dissenting opinion, Roberts effectively shows how administrative agencies basically run the country and that it is, therefore, very dangerous to give them free rein to set their own boundaries.

But wait, says Scalia. Every time an agency interprets its governing statute it is making a decision about the scope of its own power. There is no real distinction between "jurisdictional" decisions and non-jurisdictional decisions. "Chevron deference" is designed to protect the rule of law by giving us administrative certainty rather than having federal courts second-guessing the Executive Branch's decisions. According to Scalia, Chief Justice Roberts' attempt to carve out a area of agency rulemaking exempt from "Chevron deference" represents a judicial power grab in an area where courts should exercise that rare quality: judicial restraint.

What do you say?  Should we empower judges to set the limits of agency discretion?  Or should we trust the bureaucrats who are -- at least to some extent -- accountable to Congress and/or the President? Personally, I'm with the dissent on this one, but any opinion of Justice Scalia (and joined by Thomas) is worth a long, hard look.

Prior to President Obama's recent surge of dinners and golf outings with members of Congress, the knock on the Commander-in-Chief was that he didn't have a great social game. He was aloof, distant, and imperious. He lacked a human touch, unable to alternately charm and cudgel with the effectiveness of a Lyndon Johnson.

I've always found this criticism a little overblown. Sure, charm offensives may matter at the margins, but there's a parallel here to the belief among segments of the diplomatic corps that world peace is always one amiably-worded communique away from realization. When you come right down to it, most people -- particularly those who inhabit positions of power -- are more likely to be driven by self-interest or ideology than flattery. And let's be honest -- those who bend their votes based on a dinner invitation are likely not long for the political world anyway.

Still, an anecdote in former Senator Olympia Snowe's forthcoming book (the answer to a question that no one is asking) may provide some insight as to why Obama doesn't rely on a lot of glad-handing: he's not very good at it. From the Portland Press Herald:

In an earlier phone call, Obama had told the Republican that she could be "a modern-day Joan of Arc" by supporting his health care bill, now known as "Obamacare." When Snowe pointed out Joan of Arc had been burned at the stake, Obama reportedly replied: "Don't worry, I'll be there with a fire hose!" She still voted against the bill on the Senate floor.

The use of the word "still" in that final sentence represents a massive amount of undue credit to the President. If his most persuasive pitch is to invite U.S. senators to imagine themselves immolated ... well, maybe it's for the best that he doesn't work the phones that often.

One of the environmental left’s favorite pictures to paint is of North America as a pristine ecological paradise prior to the industrial revolution of the 19th century. Often, the most hysterical headlines about climate change employ alarming phrases such as “For the first time in human history!” and “Never before seen levels!” and “All-time highs!”

I’ve always been a little skeptical. Weathermen often announce the breaking of temperature records set in 1885 and 1917. How could that be? If weather variations are all explainable by carbon levels in the atmosphere, what exactly could have caused the odd 87-degree, late-November day in New York City during the administration of Grover Cleveland?

Anyway, there’s a story in this morning’s Wall Street Journal about a plan being considered to ban the use of fire pits on beaches in Southern California. Roasting marshmallows with sand between your toesies is evidently a treasured local tradition. Sounds nice to me.

Naturally, a killjoy commission has been established to examine the environmental effects of the area’s 857 beach-fire pits. It’s called the South Coast Air Quality Management District.

Last week, the air-quality board released preliminary findings of a study on the fires, which found that in one evening a pit emits as much fine-particulate pollution as "one heavy-duty diesel truck driving 564 miles."

I’m not that good at math, but Google is. If every one of those fire pits was working at full capacity every night of the year (857 X 564 X 365) that would be the equivalent of about 176.5 million diesel truck miles worth of fine-particulate pollution annually. So, according to the South Coast Air Quality Management District report, the fire pits of Southern California are capable of belching into the air every year roughly the same amount of pollution that you’d expect from a heavy-duty diesel truck making 36,526 round trips between Huntington Beach, California and Jacksonville, Florida.

Okay, so the fires aren’t blazing every night. But the story got me thinking about a time when they were—and on a scale bigger than in Los Angeles or Orange Counties.

The Native American population north of the Rio Grande at the time of Columbus’s arrival in the Americas was—at a minimum—10 million. Who knows how many tribes, families, and discreet social units were to be found in a population of 10 million? But for the sake of argument, let’s make a very conservative guess that this 10 million was broken up into 1 million families of 10 people each.

Can we agree that semi-nomadic, pre-modern peoples—especially hunter-gatherers—built fires for cooking and such? Can we agree further that they probably did so every night? So, let’s estimate that 1 million families north of the Rio Grande built an open-pit, wood fire every night during the pre-Colombian era.

Using the South Coast Air Quality Management District report figures, that’s 564 million miles worth of diesel-truck pollution in the United States and Canada every night in a time when not a single car, truck, airplane, or factory was anywhere to be found. It’s almost 206 billion miles worth of diesel-truck pollution in the atmosphere annually—the equivalent of about 43 million round trips between California and Florida.

Of course, once the Europeans got here, the number of fires built every evening in North America expanded alongside the rapidly multiplying population. Cough cough.

There are three possible conclusions as I see it. Either:

1. The South Coast Air Quality Management District report is really over-estimating the amount of smoke these fires throw off;
2. The North American atmosphere in the pre-Colombian era was a lot more polluted than has been previously appreciated; or
3. The hysteria about global warming has reached an absolute fever-pitch of insanity.

What do you think?

If you are in the D.C. area, please join me tomorrow as I discuss abortion with a few other libertarians:

As a political philosophy, libertarianism stresses concepts such as self-ownership, voluntary consent, and non-agression. In many areas of human activity, the application of such ideas seems relatively straightforward. In others, reaching clarity is far more difficult.

On Tuesday, May 21, from 2pm to 3pm in Washington, D.C., Reason will host a discussion tackling one of the most controversial and debated issues of the day: abortion. Among self-identified libertarians, there's a wide variety of positions, ranging from support for all forms of abortions to the prohibition of the same...

The topics discussed will include

• When does human life - and when do rights - begin?
• What's the role of science - and religion - in setting abortion policy?
• Is there a role for the state in prohibiting, regulating, and providing abortion?

You can either join us at Reason HQ or stream the event online.

Fellow panelist Katherine Mangu-Ward will be taking the "abortion is totally awesome" side of things and I'm unsure what the views of Ron Bailey are. He'll probably argue for how science should play a role in the debate. I'll be representing the pro-life side of things and Nick Gillespie will moderate. In his book The Declaration of Independents, he said that about a third of libertarians are pro-life. That sounds about right to me.

Even though a majority of libertarians are pro-choice, the movement is not as hostile to pro-life thought as you might think.

So, what would you like covered in this discussion? And what do Ricochet's libertarians have to say about the topic?

A couple of weeks ago, the National Education Association asked people to share their favorite memories of good teachers.

My mom was a public school teacher for 40 years, and a fantastic one at that, but as soon as I read the NEA request, I could only think of some of my worst teachers.

Actually, I had pretty good teachers. My brother had epically awful teachers. He was one of those incredibly bright children who skipped grades and picked everything up with almost frightening speed. When we moved from California to Colorado, his 6th grade teacher gave him all As and a B. My parents wanted to find out more about why and the teacher actually told them, "No one comes from California and gets all As."

There was also the time that my brother and I were in junior high school together. I had spent the previous year doing way more study of the Mayan Indians than I needed to for my independent study class. He spent a weekend writing a report on the Aztec. Our Spanish teacher brought us into the principal because, due to her laughable ignorance about native peoples, she believed my brother must have cheated.

What about you? Who were your worst teachers?

Just before he left the presidency, Dwight Eisenhower famously cautioned the nation that "[i]n the councils of government we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex."

In that same address, he offered a less heralded warning:

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

Surely the most notorious example of this corruption of and by science was the 2009 University of East Anglia global warming scandal. Publication on the Internet of hacked emails revealed a global conspiracy of scientists facilitated by strategically-placed researchers at the British university that served as the international clearing house for climate change data. A multi-continent network of scholars had suppressed climate change findings and inquiries that conflicted with a theory that promised power and a steady flow of public dollars to their community.  

In the next edition of The American Spectator, I review a brilliant new account of the climate change issue, The Age of Global Warming: A History by British policy intellectual Rupert Darwall. The prescience of Eisenhower's warning is on full display throughout the story -- from the gaming of computer models to the stacking of the peer review process to projections of catastrophic harm made to sound imminent but in fact nearly a millennium in the future.

But my question here is: can climate change be the only area in which science has been corrupted by politics and money? In recent years we have seen reports of scientists linking with activists in other areas, attacking new technologies based on studies -- the data and methodologies they would not share -- but reaping grant support as a result.

The link of science and public money may be here to stay, but shouldn't receivers of public dollars come under a more critical public scrutiny? Shouldn't it be required, for example, that findings be independently replicated, that data generated at public institutions be publicly shared, that data showing an absence of correlations and test results that disprove or call into question theories be published?  In other words, shouldn't we expect more searching scientific debate over the methods and results of publicly-funded science? 

None of what I am suggesting is new. But it seems to me that Eisenhower's warning about the corruption of science and the danger of a scientific-technological elite capturing public policy needs to be taken much more seriously.

Because they don't have anything else to worry about in Brussels.

If you want ever again to dip your bread into a bowl of olive oil on your table at a restaurant in Europe, or to pour olive oil onto it from a quaint, refillable jug, you'd better hurry up. It'll be illegal in January 2014:

The small glass jugs filled with green or gold coloured extra virgin olive oil are familiar and traditional for restaurant goers across Europe but they will be banned from 1 January 2014 after a decision taken in an obscure Brussels committee earlier this week.

From next year olive oil "presented at a restaurant table" must be in pre-packaged, factory bottles with a tamper-proof dispensing nozzle and labelling in line with EU industrial standards.

The use of classic, refillable glass jugs or glazed terracotta dipping bowls and the choice of a restaurateur to buy olive oil from a small artisan producer or family business will be outlawed.

Let's see. This move will benefit large industrial producers at the expense of small, artisanal olive oil makers, require non-eco-friendly, mass-produced generic packaging, and kill off one more vestige of what remains of European charm. 

The decision, which will be automatically adopted by the commission in the next few days, has dismayed many officials who are concerned that a ban crafted to help industry will damage the reputation of the EU at a time of growing hostility to Brussels bureaucrats.

"This is sort of thing that gets the EU a deservedly bad name. I shouldn't say so but I hope people disobey this ban," said an official.

"It will seem bonkers that olive oil jugs must go while vinegar bottles or refillable wine jugs can stay."

Responding to the ban, Martin Callanan MEP, the leader of the European Conservative and Reformist group, asked: "Is it April 1st?".

"With the euro crisis, a collapse in confidence in the EU, and a faltering economy surely the commission has more important things to worry about than banning refillable olive oil bottles?"

The Telegraph is having none of this:

There are bigger reasons to desire renegotiation of our relationship with the EU, but its obsession with olive-oil dipping does add to its aura of authoritarianism. What next? If the EU tries to tell the British how much milk or sugar to put in their tea, we predict a riot.

...But probably nothing good.  From BetaBeat:

A new survey of 19,000 parents worldwide said their kids browse porn as early as age six and begin e-flirting at eight years old. The news comes from Bitdefender, a Bucharest-based antivirus company, that compiled the results from talking with parents and monitoring which sites parents block.

The Internet-addicted generation is also using instant messaging services and playing video games at younger ages than ever before, Bitdefender said. The survey found kids playing video games as young as five, and 17 percent of those surveyed registered for social media sites at 10 years old. Those sneaky kids also figured out that they could get around several sites’ 13-year-old minimum age by–get this!–lying about their ages.

What I hope, of course, is that this is all overblown. What I know -- deep down -- is that we're coarsening ourselves and our children and doing it faster and faster. It used to take generations for things to get lousy and decrepit. Now, at internet speeds, we can achieve it all within one generational cycle.

The real problem is, what happens when all of those six year-olds grow up to be blasé and bored by what used to be deep and mysterious urges? Will Seen that ever replace Done that as key human driver?

It is, to use one of President Obama's more overwrought phrases, a "teachable moment." To be sure, it is neither the lesson nor the moment he had in mind, but liberalism is nothing if not an ongoing tutorial in unintended consequences. Less than a fortnight after the President urged the American people to reject those who, as he disparagingly put it, "…warn that tyranny is always lurking just around the corner," his administration proceeded to provide a taste of tyranny's power and reach.

For his part, MSNBC's Joe Scarborough acknowledged that, "My argument is less persuasive today because of these scandals. People say, 'Hey, if they do this with the IRS, asking people what books you read, then how can I trust them with information about my Second Amendment rights?'" On CNN, no less a champion of liberal causes than Piers Morgan conceded:

I've had some of the pro-gun lobbyists on here, saying to me, 'Well, the reason we need to be armed is because of tyranny from our own government,' and I've always laughed at them.  I said, 'Don't be so ridiculous, your own government won't turn itself on you,' but actually, this is vaguely tyrannical behavior by the American government. I think what the IRS did is bordering on tyrannical behavior. I think what the Department of Justice has done to the AP is bordering on tyrannical behavior.

Concerning which, a few observations:  

1.  The point many of us have been making is not, as the President so fatuously claimed, that "tyranny is always lurking just around the corner." Rather, ours is the historically incontrovertible position that, A) government is organically inclined to aggrandize power unto itself, and that, B) such aggrandizement, incremental though it may be, typically occurs at the expense of human freedom, sovereignty, and dignity.  

2.  When a government seeks out and punishes select citizens on the basis of their political beliefs using its most powerful, its most feared, and its most unaccountable enforcement agency, unashamedly and belligerently stating before the people's elected representatives that it retains the legal prerogative to do so, that government is quickly growing out of control.

3.  When the acting chief of this tax collecting agency refuses to denounce his agency's inquiries into the content of a private citizen's prayers, we are entitled not only to observe that the government no longer works for the people, but to draw quite obvious conclusions on the wisdom of entrusting this agency or this government with our healthcare.

4.  When unprecedented intrusions on First Amendment protections of a free press are treated so cavalierly by an Attorney General who breezily testifies to his contented ignorance of it all, our concern over the security of the rest of the Bill of Rights is entirely justified.

5.  When the President voices his continued faith and confidence in this blissfully incurious and benighted Attorney General, we are right to be alarmed.

6.  When, in the midst of these fundamental transgressions on our liberty, the President departs to a campaign stop, from which remove he labels these assaults as "fleeting issue(s)," he betrays a disturbing indifference to such rights as he took an oath to uphold.

7.  In so doing, the President has not only underscored the folly of his earlier denunciation of those who remain skeptical of ever-expanding government; he has not just validated Lord Acton's warning that,  "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely;" but he has vividly re-certified the continuing relevance of America's Founders.

8.  James Madison's observation in Federalist 51 is as fresh and relevant as the morning's headlines:  "If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary." And Thomas Jefferson appears to have read the Democratic Party's platform when he advises that:

I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on his ground: That all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people (10th Amendment).  To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specifically drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible to any definition.

So while we welcome the epiphanies of Messrs Morgan and Scarborough, and hope they will hang around awhile and help the rest of us in a continuing defense of the Bill of Rights, along with the rest of the Constitution, it's not an assurance we can "take to the bank," as they say. The liberal infatuation with centralized authority runs deep, after all. From Franklin Roosevelt's early admiration of Mussolini's handiwork to the gushing praise of American progressives over Stalin's governance (typified by Paul Robeson's remark upon his return from a visit to the Soviet Union that, "From what I have already seen of the workings of the Soviet Government, I can only say that anybody who lifts his hand against it ought to be shot!"), the liberal heart swoons to the siren song of paradise on earth and of human perfection, accomplished through the force of persuasion if possible, at the point of a gun if necessary.

"I'd like to teach the world to sing, in perfect harmony," goes the old Coca-Cola jingle.  The liberal, upon learning that not everyone wants to sing, and that perfect harmony is unachievable without total conformity to a prescribed sheet of music, goes from teaching to instructing. Individualism is at first discouraged, and then eventually rooted out as instruction yields to regulation. For those who still cling to their individual sovereignty, refusing to conform to the designs of the liberal maestro, harassment and coercion are the order of the day, resulting in headlines announcing the IRS's tormenting of those who resist the designs of the state on their lives, beliefs, and property. It is all utterly predictable, utterly diabolical, and totally unfathomable to adherents of paternal government.  

It is likely only a matter of time before Maureen Dowd, Chris Matthews, Dana Milbank, Piers Morgan, Joe Scarborough, the Associated Press and the rest make their prodigal way back to the welcoming arms of Barack Obama and his legions of government enthusiasts. Unfortunately, more epiphanies are coming, not the least of which will be the colossal train wreck of Obamacare.  When it is too late, perhaps a few of them will understand that the masterpiece of modern liberalism was unveiled long ago by Alexis de Tocqueville:

After having thus successively taken each member of the community in its powerful grasp and fashioned him at will, the supreme power then extends its arm over the whole community. It covers the surface of society with a network of small complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided; men are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting. Such a power does not destroy, but prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.

Do you ever feel as though you've stepped into some kind of fictional parallel universe? The IRS scandal is starting to take on the dimensions of a dark satirical netherworld -- Evelyn Waugh with a dollop of Orwell thrown in.

The Coalition for Life of Iowa applied for tax-exempt status in 2008, opening itself up to 10 months of interrogation by the IRS. The organization's board was ordered by the IRS to sign a sworn declaration that they would never protest or picket Planned Parenthood, and they were obliged to answer questions like the following:

Please detail the content of the members of your organization's prayers.

IRS Commissioner Steven Miller, asked about this during a House Ways and Means Committee hearing, couldn't bring himself to say that such a demand was out of line. The most he would offer was that it was surprising.

Not anymore, it isn't.

With so many White House scandals—and new ones popping up every day—how are average citizens supposed to keep track? Wouldn't it be nice if Obama went on ESPN and mapped them all on a bracket?

Why wait for next year's March Madness when you can start May Madness today? Introducing the Obama Scandal Bracket! Click here for a full-size version and vote for the scandal you think will bring down the president.

Since reading Kevin Williamson’s post at NRO’s The Corner on his abbreviated night at the theater (previously discussed here on Ricochet), I’ve pondered how I, as a police officer, might respond to a similar set of circumstances if such were to unfold in Los Angeles. 

For those not yet abreast of the facts, they can be distilled thus: Last Wednesday, Mr. Williamson and a date attended an off-Broadway performance of Natasha, Pierre, and the Great Comet of 1812.  They were chagrined to find members of the audience “talking, using their phones, and making a general nuisance of themselves.” Among the most flagrant offenders was the woman seated next to Mr. Williamson, who, despite the standard pre-show admonition to turn off all cell phones, and despite Mr. Williamson’s entreaties to stop, insisted on using hers throughout the performance. She suggested Mr. Williamson mind his own business. 

A protest to the theater management during the intermission brought no relief, so Mr. Williamson took matters into his own hands – minded his own business, you might say – snatching the offending instrument from the woman’s hand and launching it across the room.  The woman slapped him, then stormed off to summon a “black-suited agent of order,” who promptly ushered Mr. Williamson and his date to the door and out into the Manhattan night.

“There is talk of criminal charges,” he ominously concludes his post.  “I will keep you updated.”

So presumably the police were called, and with Mr. Williamson and his date having departed, the responding officers were left with only the complaining party and her companions to offer a version of what had happened, a version that surely omitted facts inconvenient to the woman’s case.  Mr. Williamson likely has been named as the suspect in crime report now being investigated by some beleaguered detective for the NYPD.

But in our hypothetical, which occurs at a theater here in Los Angeles, the phone-chucker, whom we’ll call Mr. W., is still at the scene when Officer Dunphy arrives, as is the woman whose phone was chucked. We’ll call her, just choosing a letter at random, Miss C.

Miss C. tells the horrifying tale of seeing her phone snatched from her hand and flung across the room, perhaps resulting in damage. Mr. W. counters by relating his pleas to the woman that she stop using the phone during the performance, and the lack of intercession by the theater management when such was requested.

So, here is Officer Dunphy’s dilemma: While Miss C.’s conduct was boorish, it was not against the law, at least up until the moment she slapped Mr. W.  But in grabbing and throwing Miss C.’s phone, Mr. W. has committed a battery and an act of vandalism, both of them misdemeanors.

Officer Dunphy cannot help but sympathize with Mr. W., whose immediate arrest Miss C. now demands. Who among us has not experienced a similar impulse at a play, concert, or movie theater? Who among us would not have to repress the desire to hurl the phone across the room with Miss C. still attached? But, while the greater offense against civilized society may arguably have been committed by Miss C., the law is the law. As the misdemeanors alleged did not occur in my presence, however, I cannot lawfully arrest Mr. W. on probable cause; Miss C. must make a citizen’s arrest, which she is only too happy to do.

“But,” I say to Miss C., "Mr. W. claims that you struck him, an act that also meets all the corpus delicti of a battery. He too is lawfully entitled to place you under citizen’s arrest.”

Miss C. is of course indignant, as would be expected of someone whose exaggerated sense of entitlement allows her to use her cell phone during a live performance. “Officer Dunphy,” Mr. W. says, “If I’m going to the hoosegow, then by golly, so is she.”

At which point Miss C., facing the prospect of a long and unpleasant experience, very likely says, “The hell with it,” or words to that effect, and recants her desire to arrest Mr. W. I then document the incident and the countering allegations on a crime report, which in due course will be funneled through the bureaucracy of the LAPD and the city attorney’s office before being forgotten, a process that will waste the time of many people along the way.

As a police officer I cannot endorse Mr. Williamson’s conduct that night. But not all justice is achieved in the courtroom, and my sense is that in tossing that woman's phone across the theater, Mr. Williamson served the cause of justice. He may get a wrist-slap to go along with his face-slap, but I suspect that rude woman will think twice before she uses her phone in the theater again.

Just when you think you have seen it all …

We’ll start by noting yet more evidence that the IRS’s audits of political groups was entirely inequitable in nature:

When the Barack H. Obama Foundation sought tax-exempt status to raise money for good works in Kenya, the Internal Revenue Service provided quick help.

The IRS approved charitable status for the foundation, which was run by President Obama’s brother and named after his father, in about a month’s time. The IRS also agreed to give the group this important financial status retroactively, back to 2009, when it had begun its fundraising.

The 34 days the IRS’s Cincinnati office took to process the foundation’s application stands in contrast to the waits of several months — and sometimes longer than a year — that several conservative groups say they experienced with the same office. Obama has apologized, saying Americans have a right to be angry that the office improperly targeted conservative groups for extra scrutiny.

And more:

The Internal Revenue Service scandal involving the apparently unjustified targeting of Tea Party and other conservative groups has also hit home with the Hispanic community.

George Rodriguez, former president of the San Antonio Tea Party, said that when the organization applied for non-profit status, leaders were intimidated by IRS workers with excessive paperwork and meddling questions.

“They asked us all sorts of things that were out of the norm,” Rodriguez, now head of the conservative South Texas Alliance, told Fox News Latino. “We knew these questions were not the norm and we had our suspicions about them.”

Rodriguez said the group received a questionnaire from the IRS with “well over 50 questions,” including inquiries into who the group met with, where they held their meetings, who was in attendance and what the subject of their internal emails were.

“They should have been worried about the numbers, not who we were meeting with,” he added. “It was flat-out dirty politics.”

Despite all of this, Steven Miller claims that the IRS’s targeting of conservatives was “absolutely not illegal.” He won’t tell us whether it was “unethical,” “appalling,” “unprofessional” or whether it “smacked of police state tactics,” however. And I guess we’re not supposed to worry about the legal/ethical issues raised by this bit of news:

NBC’s Lisa Myers reported this morning that the IRS  deliberately chose not to reveal that it had wrongly targeted conservative groups until after the 2012 presidential election …

The IRS commissioner “has known for at least a year that this was going on,” said Myers, “and that this had happened. And did he share any of that information with the White House? But even more importantly, Congress is going to ask him, why did you mislead us for an entire year? …

More:

The Internal Revenue Service’s watchdog told top Treasury officials around June 2012 he was investigating allegations the tax agency had targeted conservative groups, for the first time indicating that Obama administration officials were aware of the explosive matter in the midst of the president’s re-election campaign.

The disclosure to the Treasury general counsel and the deputy secretary was a cursory one, according to J. Russell George, the Treasury inspector general for tax administration. He said he didn’t reveal conclusions of the probe, which was in its early stages, and his disclosure came as part of a routine update to Treasury leaders. At the time, Republican lawmakers were complaining publicly about alleged IRS targeting of tea-party groups.

The revelation nonetheless raised a fresh set of questions about who was aware of the problem within the Obama administration. It was one of several new details that emerged during a contentious four-hour House committee hearing Friday, held one week after an IRS official revealed at a legal conference that the agency had taken “absolutely inappropriate” actions in targeting conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status for often heavy-handed scrutiny.

Among other disclosures: The conference revelation was itself stage-managed. Ousted IRS acting Commissioner Steven Miller testified he planned it with the director of the division in question. Republican lawmakers expressed amazement that IRS officials didn’t tell them first.

The hearing left numerous other fundamental questions unanswered, however, including who ordered the targeting and why it continued so long, pointing to a protracted investigation ahead. Mr. Miller conceded the agency likely disciplined the wrong employee in one effort to address the problem. Another was reassigned in the agency’s Cincinnati office, but he couldn’t provide the employee’s name.

And we are supposed to believe that there is nothing criminal about any of this? I trust at least that we won’t have to have a prolonged debate about how incredibly unethical and dirty all of this is.

Here is more on the “stage-managed” disclosure:

Last week, Lois Lerner, head of the tax exempt division of the Internal Revenue Service dropped a bombshell: The IRS had been applying extra scrutiny to conservative groups claiming tax exempt status.

The revelation came seemingly out of the blue, in response to a question during a panel at an American Bar Association conference, leaving the audience baffled, according to reports.

As it turns out, it was not a spontaneous revelation. The question, said outgoing IRS Commissioner Steven Miller in testimony before the House Ways and Means Committee Friday, was planted, as part of a prepared strategy for the IRS to release this information to the public.

Under questioning from Republican Rep. Devin Nunes, Miller said it was a “prepared Q and A,” and the question, which came from tax lawyer Celia Roady had been discussed in advance as well.

Roady told U.S. News and World Report later Friday afternoon that Lerner had personally contacted her and requested she ask the specific question. Roady said she did not know at the time what Lerner’s answer would be.

Why on Earth didn’t Lerner or Miller simply announce the information? Why didn’t they tell anyone in Congress? And why did they hide the information during election season? Isn’t this the kind of news that voters ought to know about before they go to the polls?

Again, am I supposed to believe that nothing illegal or unethical went on around here? Because I’m having trouble doing so.

I don’t know if Orwell could have dreamed this up:

During a House Ways and Means Committee hearing today, Rep. Aaron Schock, R-Ill., grilled outgoing IRS commissioner Steven Miller about the IRS targeting a pro-life group in Iowa.
“Their question, specifically asked from the IRS to the Coalition for Life of Iowa: ‘Please detail the content of the members of your organization’s prayers,’” Schock declared.
“Would that be an inappropriate question to a 501 c3 applicant?” asked Schock. “The content of one’s prayers?”
“It pains me to say I can’t speak to that one either,” Miller replied.

After Schock pressed him further, Miller explained that although he couldn’t comment on the specific case, it would “surprise him” if that question was asked.

I presume that someone will have the nerve to tell us that this doesn’t constitute a blow against freedom of religion.

If you are looking for some kind of reassurance that the people responsible for this scandal are being punished, well, don’t read this story:

The Internal Revenue Service official in charge of the tax-exempt organizations at the time when the unit targeted tea party groups now runs the IRS office responsible for the health care legislation.

Sarah Hall Ingram served as commissioner of the office responsible for tax-exempt organizations between 2009 and 2012. But Ingram has since left that part of the IRS and is now the director of the IRS’ Affordable Care Act office, the IRS confirmed to ABC News today.

[…]

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell also reacted to the revelation late Thursday, stating the news was “stunning, just stunning.”

And there are probably more stunning revelations to come. Like, you know, this:

Sarah Hall Ingram, the IRS executive in charge of the tax exempt division in 2010 when it began targeting conservative Tea Party, evangelical and pro-Israel groups for harassment, got more than $100,000 in bonuses between 2009 and 2012.

More recently, Ingram was promoted to serve as director of the tax agency’s Obamacare program office, a position that put her in charge of the vast expansion of the IRS’ regulatory power and staffing in connection with federal health care, ABC reported earlier today.

Ingram received a $7,000 bonus in 2009, according to data obtained by The Washington Examiner from the IRS, then a $34,440 bonus in 2010, $35,400 in 2011 and $26,550 last year, for a total of $103,390. Her annual salary went from $172,500 to $177,000 during the same period.

The 2010, 2011 and 2012 bonuses were awarded during the period when IRS harassment of the conservative groups was most intense. The newspaper obtained the data via a Freedom of Information Act request.

Only government would respond to incredibly unethical—and possibly illegal—behavior by giving those responsible for the unethical/illegal behavior bonuses. Oh, and when the IRS is not engaging in illegal/unethical behavior, it is acting like the Keystone Kops:

In March 2012, the Human Rights Campaign and The Huffington Post made public confidential tax documents from the National Organization for Marriage. The Human Rights Campaign said it obtained the documents from a “whistle-blower” who mailed them to the gay rights group’s Washington headquarters.

In a similar incident, ProPublica, an investigative journalism Web site, asked the I.R.S.’s Cincinnati office for the applications of 67 nonprofits, both liberal and conservative. When the I.R.S. responded, it inadvertently included applications for nine conservative groups that had not yet been granted tax-exempt status, a violation of confidentiality law.

When ProPublica realized what it had — including the application from Crossroads GPS, the conservative group founded by Karl Rove and other Republican strategists — it alerted the I.R.S., which warned the journalists that “publishing unauthorized returns or return information was a felony” punishable by up to five years in prison. ProPublica ProPublica redacted certain details and published the documents anyway.

Representative Peter Roskam, Republican of Illinois, hit on a different explanation. “On the one hand, you’re arguing today that the I.R.S. is not corrupt, but the subtext of that is you’re saying, ‘Look, we’re just incompetent,’ ” Mr. Roskam said. “It is a perilous pathway to go down.”

Is there anyone out there who is still willing to claim that there is no scandal here? And if so, what are those people smoking?

Alongside the big three scandals currently rocking the nation, another is brewing within the U.S. military. According to a recent Pentagon report, 26,000 service members were sexually assaulted last year—that’s up 35 percent from 2010. The increase is due to victims being more willing to report the crimes and also a broadening of the definition of “sexual assault.”

Contrary to the Pentagon's report, there have been reports that these numbers are incorrect due to false reports of sexual assault:

False complaints of sexual abuse in the military are rising at a faster rate than overall reports of sexual assault, a trend that could harm combat readiness, analysts say.

From 2009 to 2012, the number of sexual abuse reports rose from 3,244 to 3,374 — a 4 percent increase.

During the same period, the number of what the Pentagon calls “unfounded allegations” based on completed investigations of those reports rose from 331 to 444 — a 35 percent increase.

In 2012, there were 2,661 completed investigations, meaning that the 444 false complaints accounted for about 17 percent of all closed cases last year. False reports accounted for about 13 percent of closed cases in 2009.

Despite the disparity in number of assaults, lawmakers are still calling for changes, and President Obama spoke out for more oversight by the military in the proper handling of sexual assault cases. The situation has been made even worse by reports that some service members responsible for preventing such crimes have been allegedly involved in sexual assault themselves. 

In response to the scandal, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel has ordered the armed services to immediately re-train, re-credential and re-screen tens of thousands of military recruiters and sexual-assault prevention officers. Lawmakers are also considering stripping commanders of their sole authority to decide whether complaints of sexual assault go forward.

During congressional hearings on the issue of sexual assault in the military, Air Force Chief of Staff Mark Welsh came under fire for citing a “hook-up culture” for part of the problem. He was accused, in essence, of blaming the victim. Welsh quickly recanted, saying, “I am sorry about that because there is nothing that is further from the truth as far as I personally feel.”

Even if Welsh didn’t mean to blame the victim, there are some who do. One study found that half of the women polled think that rape victims are to blame for “wearing a short skirt, accepting a drink or having a conversation with the rapist” or “dancing in a provocative way or flirting.”

When it comes to sexual assault and women in combat specifically, columnist Phyllis Schlafly wrote that “military women are already complaining about increased sexual assaults, and of course those problems will skyrocket. Only men will be deemed at fault because it is feminist ideology that men are innately batterers and women are victims.”

Some of the left lashed out at Schlafly for blaming the victim instead of the man: “If the rate of (male-on-female) sexual harassment goes up when women serve in combat positions, only men will be deemed at fault because only men will be at fault.”

While I am no lover of radical feminism and am opposed to women in combat positions (for reasons other than sexual temptation), I think it is a mistake for conservatives to blame the victim when it comes to sexual assault. I think to do so shifts blame from where it belongs—on the evil actions of the perpetrator—and reinforces the perception that conservatives don’t care about women.

The argument that women should not serve in the military because they might be sexually assaulted assumes that men in our military have no self-control. This is an unfair assumption—about men in general. It has been my experience that a good man behaves himself no matter how a woman acts or dresses or how intimate their working conditions are. And he especially behaves himself when she is simply a co-worker and not doing anything to “tempt” him other than being a woman. 

Bad men rape women. Bad men assault women. Bad men take advantage of women even when women have placed themselves in compromising positions, which still does not make her “responsible”—no more than the homeowner who leaves his door unlocked is “responsible” for getting robbed.

What do you think? Should conservatives be careful not to blame the victim when making arguments about women in combat, or do you think this is a legitimate argument despite heightened sensitivity to the issue, particularly among young women—a group conservatives are trying to win over?

Rock and Roll can only happen - really happen - in the Free World. The protesting, rebelling and emoting; the open lusting, longing and exulting - these are Free World luxuries. Rock and Roll expresses the bigness of our wishes, hopes and dreams, and expresses our anxiety, frustration, and confusion in response to what the Free World has become. The joyful side of today's version of freedom, and the dark side, are both there.

I like a good road trip with good rock and roll. I've recently taken a couple trips in my new car, and have particularly enjoyed the satellite radio. Between the Classic Rock, Classic Vinyl and Deep Tracks stations, I'm all set for my ride. I find that the songs help me cope with the unbelievably sad and worrying news that relentlessly sideswipes us today.  It gives me relief and reminds me how fun and exciting it is to be free.  It expresses the indignation I feel about assaults on liberty, the rage I feel about the abuse of children and the revulsion I feel toward Brave New World artificiality.

So here is a list of songs that, for me, convey the joy of freedom and the frustration over what the "Free World" has become. From the Beatles line "I read the news today, Oh boy....." to Pink Floyd's line "Hello, hello, Is anybody in there?" to Earth Wind and Fire's line "Bless the Children", I think you'll see what I mean.

Cream - "I Feel Free"

Neil Young - "Rockin' in the Free World"

Richie Havens - "Freedom"

U2 - "Beautiful Day"

Grateful Dead - "Box of Rain"

Grand Funk Railroad - "We're an American Band"

Nirvana - "Smells Like Teen Spirit"

Pink Floyd - "Comfortably Numb"

Traffic - "Dear Mr. Fantasy"

John Lennon - "Give Me Some Truth"

George Harrison - "While My Guitar Gently Weeps"

Rolling Stones - "Gimme Shelter"

Marvin Gaye - "What's Going On?"

The Who - "Won't Get Fooled Again"

The Beatles - "A Day in the Life"

Jimmy Hendrix - "All Along the Watchtower"

Jackson Browne - "Running on Empty"

Eric Clapton - "Blues Power"

Queen - "The Show Must Go On"

Coldplay - "Fix You"

Phil Collins - "Another Day in Paradise"

Led Zeppelin- "Stairway to Heaven"

Black Sabbath - "Paranoid"

Red Hot Chili Peppers - "Can't Stop"

Fleetwood Mac - "Landslide"

Joe Cocker - "With a Little Help from My Friends"

That's my list. What's yours? What songs particularly convey the ups and the downs of living in the "Free World" today? Alternatively, what song or songs would you add to this list?

Lady Ricochet readers: If you were upset about potentially losing your right to bear an oversize soft drink in New York City, perhaps you will take comfort in knowing that at least some rights remain vigilantly protected by the Bloomberg regime:

The command was read [in February] at 10 consecutive roll calls. Each of the city’s 34,000 officers, in theory, got the message: For “simply exposing their breasts in public,” women are guilty of no crime.

Whether any officer encountered such a brave-hearted, bare-chested soul is not clear, nor is the reason for the Police Department’s concern about such matters in the dead of winter...

“I thought you had to have body paint,” a female officer said.

“No,” the first replied. “You don’t need that.”

(Mayor Michael Bloomberg points to that which is legal in New York City.)

The audience question at an otherwise sleepy conference that allowed the IRS to ever so slightly frontrun the revelation that it targeted conservative organizations was, it turns out, planted by the IRS. 

The Internal Revenue Service wrote and planted the question asked on May 10 that led to the IRS scandal, the questioner said in a statement today.

Celia Roady, a partner at Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP in Washington, said she received a call May 9 from Lois Lerner, the mid-level IRS official in charge of tax-exempt organizations. Both were planning to attend a tax conference the next day in Washington.

Here's the question that was asked:

“Lois, a few months ago there were some concerns about the IRS’s review of 501(c)(4) organizations, of applications from tea party organizations. I was just wondering if you could provide an update.”

Just wondering, baby. An IRS official scripted that breezy question, so that the IRS could appear to be nonchalantly coming clean about a minor infraction that it knew would be revealed in a few days. This is almost theatrically evil. 

Rob, let's get to work on the screenplay, shall we? We're going to need a parking garage.