jeffblue101
New member
Actually, he was already leaving in June.
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiep...-scandal-was-already-leaving-in-june-n1598298
IRS Admits Targeting Conservative Groups; Apologizes
- Thread starter serpentdove
- Start date
Actually, he was already leaving in June.
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiep...-scandal-was-already-leaving-in-june-n1598298
The rot goes deeper than that.
Report: IRS targeted liberal leaning groups, too
Happy Thursday. Turns out that it wasn't only tea party groups targeted by the IRS for increased scrutiny, there were a few liberal leaning wannabe nonprofits that faced the same level of concern. Three Democratic groups says not only were they subjected to extra questions from the IRS, one group say its tax exempt status denied. [Bloomberg]
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/blogsoutofcontext/56320108-64/utah-trib-irs-says.html.csp
Were any conservative groups denied?
I'm sure that the House republicans are going to hold hearings over the IRS practice of targeting liberal groups, soon. (WFTH-I) I notice that Julian Bond, whose organization was given the same sort of treatment by the Bush administration, sees nothing wrong with it. I guess he figures if the IRS can target liberals, then it's O.K. for them to target conservatives. I think that's indefensible. But it does point up the selective outrage among republicans who suspect the Obama administration is doing to them, what the Bush administration did to democrats.
The key here is that the IRS is legally prohibited from using their power in a corrupt way. U.S. representatives are not so encumbered by the law. :chuckle:
“I wish there was more GOP interest when I raised the same issue during the Bush administration, where they audited a progressive church in my district in what look liked a very selective way,” California Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff said on MSNBC Monday. “I found only one Republican, [North Carolina Rep. Walter Jones], that would join me in calling for an investigation during the Bush administration. I’m glad now that the GOP has found interest in this issue and it ought to be a bipartisan concern.”
The well-known church, All Saints Episcopal in Pasadena, became a bit of a cause célèbre on the left after the IRS threatened to revoke the church’s tax-exempt status over an anti-Iraq War sermon the Sunday before the 2004 election. “Jesus [would say], ‘Mr. President, your doctrine of preemptive war is a failed doctrine,’” rector George Regas said from the dais.
The church, which said progressive activism was in its “DNA,” hired a powerful Washington lawyer and enlisted the help of Schiff, who met with the commissioner of the IRS twice and called for a Government Accountability Office investigation, saying the IRS audit violated the First Amendment and was unduly targeting a political opponent of the Bush administration. “My client is very concerned that the close coordination undertaken by the IRS allowed partisan political concerns to direct the course of the All Saints examination,” church attorney Marcus Owens, who is widely considered one of the country’s leading experts on this area of the law, said at the time. In 2007, the IRS closed the case, decreeing that the church violated rules preventing political intervention, but it did not revoke its nonprofit status...And it wasn’t just churches. In 2004, the IRS went after the NAACP, auditing the nation’s oldest civil rights group after its chairman criticized President Bush for being the first sitting president since Herbert Hoover not to address the organization. “They are saying if you criticize the president we are going to take your tax exemption away from you,” then-chairman Julian Bond said. “It’s pretty obvious that the complainant was someone who doesn’t believe George Bush should be criticized, and it’s obvious of their response that the IRS believes this, too.”...Then, in 2006, the Wall Street Journal broke the story of a how a little-known pressure group called Public Interest Watch — which received 97 percent of its funds from Exxon Mobile one year — managed to get the IRS to open an investigation into Greenpeace. Greenpeace had labeled Exxon Mobil the “No. 1 climate criminal.” The IRS acknowledged its audit was initiated by Public Interest Watch and threatened to revoke Greenpeace’s tax-exempt status, but closed the investigation three months later...The rules are much stronger and better developed for (c)3′s, in part because they’ve been around longer. But with “social welfare” (c)4 groups, the kind of political activity we saw in 2010 and 2012 is so unprecedented that you get cases like Emerge America, a progressive nonprofit that trains Democratic female candidates for public office. The group has chapters across the country, but in 2011, chapters in Massachusetts, Maine and Nevada were denied 501(c)4 tax-exempt status. Leaders called the situation “bizarre” because in the five years Nevada had waited for approval, the Kentucky chapter was approved, only for the other three to be denied.
http://www.salon.com/2013/05/14/when_the_irs_targeted_liberals/
The same guy who applauded the IRS for using political criteria on liberal organizations are now shocked to learn that the IRS did the same thing to the organizations they back.
And now, of course, it's a "scandal." Give that kind of power to the government, that's what happens. And those cheer leading for Bush and a bigger role for the federal government were the useful fools who made it possible.
I told you so; you have no one to blame but yourselves.
The well-known church, All Saints Episcopal in Pasadena, became a bit of a cause célèbre on the left after the IRS threatened to revoke the church’s tax-exempt status over an anti-Iraq War sermon the Sunday before the 2004 election. “Jesus [would say], ‘Mr. President, your doctrine of preemptive war is a failed doctrine,’” rector George Regas said from the dais.
The church, which said progressive activism was in its “DNA,” hired a powerful Washington lawyer and enlisted the help of Schiff, who met with the commissioner of the IRS twice and called for a Government Accountability Office investigation, saying the IRS audit violated the First Amendment and was unduly targeting a political opponent of the Bush administration. “My client is very concerned that the close coordination undertaken by the IRS allowed partisan political concerns to direct the course of the All Saints examination,” church attorney Marcus Owens, who is widely considered one of the country’s leading experts on this area of the law, said at the time. In 2007, the IRS closed the case, decreeing that the church violated rules preventing political intervention, but it did not revoke its nonprofit status...And it wasn’t just churches. In 2004, the IRS went after the NAACP, auditing the nation’s oldest civil rights group after its chairman criticized President Bush for being the first sitting president since Herbert Hoover not to address the organization. “They are saying if you criticize the president we are going to take your tax exemption away from you,” then-chairman Julian Bond said. “It’s pretty obvious that the complainant was someone who doesn’t believe George Bush should be criticized, and it’s obvious of their response that the IRS believes this, too.”...Then, in 2006, the Wall Street Journal broke the story of a how a little-known pressure group called Public Interest Watch — which received 97 percent of its funds from Exxon Mobile one year — managed to get the IRS to open an investigation into Greenpeace. Greenpeace had labeled Exxon Mobil the “No. 1 climate criminal.” The IRS acknowledged its audit was initiated by Public Interest Watch and threatened to revoke Greenpeace’s tax-exempt status, but closed the investigation three months later...The rules are much stronger and better developed for (c)3′s, in part because they’ve been around longer. But with “social welfare” (c)4 groups, the kind of political activity we saw in 2010 and 2012 is so unprecedented that you get cases like Emerge America, a progressive nonprofit that trains Democratic female candidates for public office. The group has chapters across the country, but in 2011, chapters in Massachusetts, Maine and Nevada were denied 501(c)4 tax-exempt status. Leaders called the situation “bizarre” because in the five years Nevada had waited for approval, the Kentucky chapter was approved, only for the other three to be denied.
http://www.salon.com/2013/05/14/when_the_irs_targeted_liberals/
The same guy who applauded the IRS for using political criteria on liberal organizations are now shocked to learn that the IRS did the same thing to the organizations they back.
And now, of course, it's a "scandal." Give that kind of power to the government, that's what happens. And those cheer leading for Bush and a bigger role for the federal government were the useful fools who made it possible.
I told you so; you have no one to blame but yourselves.
Wonder why serpent changed the subject, suddenly. When her hero Bush was encroaching on Constitutional rights she was fine with that. Now that those encroachments are being used in ways that she doesn't like, it's a suddenly a scandal.
I told you so, serpent. Now we all live with the consequences.
I told you so, serpent. Now we all live with the consequences.
Bill Donohue: IRS Targeted Catholic League
Thursday, 16 May 2013 01:07 PM
By Bill Donohue
"The problems with the IRS extend beyond playing politics with conservative groups seeking a tax-exempt status. I have never made this public before, but given the heightened interest in the way the IRS has conducted itself, the time has come to disclose what happened.
Just weeks after Barack Obama was elected president in 2008, I was notified by the IRS that the Catholic League was under investigation for violating the IRS Code on political activities as it relates to 501(c)(3) organizations. What the IRS did not know was that I had proof who contacted them to launch the investigation: Catholics United, a George Soros-funded Catholic organization.
The IRS was contacted on June 5, 2008, to launch a probe of the Catholic League, and the letter sent to me was dated Nov. 24, 2008. The June 5 letter was sent to the IRS by lawyers from Catholics United; it was mailed to Director Marsha Ramirez, director of Exempt Organizations Examinations, and to Lois G. Lerner, director of EO Division.
The "evidence" against me was nothing more than news releases and articles I had written during the presidential campaign on various issues. The lawyers also asked the IRS to question the source of new funding we had received, implying that we received illegal contributions.
The timing is not coincidental. On Oct. 20, I issued a news release, "George Soros Funds Catholic Left," and on Oct. 23, I wrote another one, "Catholic Left Scandal Mounts"; both mentioned Catholics United. The same day, Oct. 23, I was asked to go on CNN, and when Catholics United found out, they contacted the station trying to spike the interview.
The person who did this was the head of Catholics United, Chris Korzen. He said I was not "an authentic Catholic commentator and representative of the Catholic Church," and that they should either drop me altogether or put me on with Alexia Kelley of Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good (Catholics United is listed on the 990 of Catholics in Alliance as a related organization; Soros greases this group, and by extension, Catholics United).
The bid to keep me off TV failed. But here's the key: Korzen was dumb enough to share with CNN the complaint issued by his group to the IRS. The document, which was leaked to me by someone at CNN, matches up extraordinarily well with the IRS complaint of Nov. 24.
In the end, the IRS concluded that although the Catholic League had "intervened in a political campaign," it was "unintentional, isolated, non-egregious and non-recurring"; our tax-exempt status remained intact. This is false: I intentionally addressed political issues, and did not intervene in the campaign, unless, of course, my freedom to speak about political issues is a violation of the IRS Code. If that is the case, then this IRS unit should fold.
So the problem extends beyond the IRS. It extends to left-wing activists, funded by left-wing tycoons, all for the purpose of silencing conservatives. It's time someone was held accountable for this obscene political game."
http://www.newsmax.com/newswidget/I...utm_medium=nmwidget&utm_campaign=widgetphase1
So what do you think about Bill Donohue exposing Obama's puppeteer Barbie?
Thursday, 16 May 2013 01:07 PM
By Bill Donohue
"The problems with the IRS extend beyond playing politics with conservative groups seeking a tax-exempt status. I have never made this public before, but given the heightened interest in the way the IRS has conducted itself, the time has come to disclose what happened.
Just weeks after Barack Obama was elected president in 2008, I was notified by the IRS that the Catholic League was under investigation for violating the IRS Code on political activities as it relates to 501(c)(3) organizations. What the IRS did not know was that I had proof who contacted them to launch the investigation: Catholics United, a George Soros-funded Catholic organization.
The IRS was contacted on June 5, 2008, to launch a probe of the Catholic League, and the letter sent to me was dated Nov. 24, 2008. The June 5 letter was sent to the IRS by lawyers from Catholics United; it was mailed to Director Marsha Ramirez, director of Exempt Organizations Examinations, and to Lois G. Lerner, director of EO Division.
The "evidence" against me was nothing more than news releases and articles I had written during the presidential campaign on various issues. The lawyers also asked the IRS to question the source of new funding we had received, implying that we received illegal contributions.
The timing is not coincidental. On Oct. 20, I issued a news release, "George Soros Funds Catholic Left," and on Oct. 23, I wrote another one, "Catholic Left Scandal Mounts"; both mentioned Catholics United. The same day, Oct. 23, I was asked to go on CNN, and when Catholics United found out, they contacted the station trying to spike the interview.
The person who did this was the head of Catholics United, Chris Korzen. He said I was not "an authentic Catholic commentator and representative of the Catholic Church," and that they should either drop me altogether or put me on with Alexia Kelley of Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good (Catholics United is listed on the 990 of Catholics in Alliance as a related organization; Soros greases this group, and by extension, Catholics United).
The bid to keep me off TV failed. But here's the key: Korzen was dumb enough to share with CNN the complaint issued by his group to the IRS. The document, which was leaked to me by someone at CNN, matches up extraordinarily well with the IRS complaint of Nov. 24.
In the end, the IRS concluded that although the Catholic League had "intervened in a political campaign," it was "unintentional, isolated, non-egregious and non-recurring"; our tax-exempt status remained intact. This is false: I intentionally addressed political issues, and did not intervene in the campaign, unless, of course, my freedom to speak about political issues is a violation of the IRS Code. If that is the case, then this IRS unit should fold.
So the problem extends beyond the IRS. It extends to left-wing activists, funded by left-wing tycoons, all for the purpose of silencing conservatives. It's time someone was held accountable for this obscene political game."
http://www.newsmax.com/newswidget/I...utm_medium=nmwidget&utm_campaign=widgetphase1
So what do you think about Bill Donohue exposing Obama's puppeteer Barbie?
Christian Liberty
Well-known member
NC Rep Walter Jones was also one of the few Republicans to have the guts to admit he was wrong about the Iraqi War, and become opposed to it.
The GOP and the Dems are both big government loving imperialists who hate freedom. Bush and Obama are both evil men. I don't see how Bush's evil makes criticism of Obama any less acceptable. Obama is still guilty for this.
Don't demonize your opponents. It makes things easier for them. Bush isn't evil; he's venial. I think, most of the time, he even thought the ends justified what he did. Obama is not that different; his decision to support the extension of the Patriot Act shows that.
The point is, if conservatives hadn't supported the IRS targeting liberal groups, the unrestricted tapping of phones, the Patriot Act, and so on, Obama would not have been given the power to do those things.
If you give a president the power, he will use it. That is a given, and no matter how idealistic he may be on entering the WH, the power will seduce him and he will eventually use all he has, and look for more. This is why such power needs to be trimmed back periodically, just on principle.
Christian Liberty
Well-known member
If killing 100,000 people in a country that did nothing to us and creating an organization that makes its living off the rape of children (The TSA) isn't evil I don't know what is.
They really aren't that different. Even worse than the USA Patriot Act (An Orwellian name if I've ever seen that one) was the NDAA 2012. Now, anyone can be arrested for no reason and indefinitely detained without trial if they can create a sham justification for it. Totalitarianism on the rise.
He would still have tried to get the power himself. Obama isn't really any better. The entire system is evil and immoral.
Trimming it back is a start. I'd go for abolishing the office of President entirely and giving ALL the power back to the states where it belongs. That, and a Nuremberg Trial of every living person who has ever been an occupant of the Oval Office. That would be a start.
Admittedly, and for the record, Rand Paul is a lot more "Conservative" than I am. I strongly support him because at least he's an opponent of absolute power and endless war, and he gets a lot of the issues right, but if I could put someone even more libertarian than he is in office, I absolutely would.
@NickM-
There's no way this is the most corrupt regime in US history. Certainly Obama is awful, as are most Presidents. He's even one of the worst. But he's not THE worst.
Abraham Lincoln openly ADMITTED to targeting his political opponents, and outright ARRESTED 40,000 people that criticized his regime's totalitarian policies. No trials. Not to mention the 600,000 people that were killed due to his War on the Constitution and War of Northern Aggression.
Woodrow Wilson also arrested Anti-war activists, and Schenick VS United States ridiculously upheld it. They were outright ARRESTED for speaking out against the regime and the ridiculous war known as World War One.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt did everything he could to provoke Japan into attacking him with the sanctions, then arrested and indefinitely detained a hundred thousand people without trial.
Truman's atom bombs killed over 200,000 civilians.
Yeah, Obama sucks. But he's not the absolute worst by any means. Admittedly, if you could find me a President at anytime in our history who doesn't deserve being executed as a capital criminal, I'm almost certain he'd be on the top ten list.
Christian Liberty
Well-known member
Senator Obama was definitely a better person than President Obama. Yes, he was still awful, but he was not as bad as he is now. The Obama of 2007 would likely have joined Rand Paul's filibuster rather than creatingt the need for it like the 2013 Obama did...
The Obama of 2007 wanted to withdraw from immoral, aggressive wars like the one in Iraq, the Obama in 2013 is starting them left and right.
Obama was never a good man, no. But the District of Criminals has had its effect on him.
George W. Bush was a decent man before 9/11 too, and became an evil man afterwards.
The Obama of 2007 wanted to withdraw from immoral, aggressive wars like the one in Iraq, the Obama in 2013 is starting them left and right.
Obama was never a good man, no. But the District of Criminals has had its effect on him.
George W. Bush was a decent man before 9/11 too, and became an evil man afterwards.
It's no good talking to connie about it. Kind of an obsession with him.
Christian Liberty
Well-known member
Its funny, I probably hate Obama just as much, if not more, than he does. But for completely different reasons.
Quincy
New member
Haha, they apologized. If that's true and they meant it, then it's the funniest thing I've read in days. Government agencies apologizing :rotfl: . Next thing you know, religionists will stop idolizing books, scientists will listen to Nazaroo and pigs will fly on the wings of doves!!
:hammer:
:hammer:
RandPaul writes:
I don't think it's about race or even politics with you. I think you're too extreme, but I have to admit that your politics are a lot more realistic than connie's.
I don't think it's about race or even politics with you. I think you're too extreme, but I have to admit that your politics are a lot more realistic than connie's.
99lamb
New member
Nearly all men can stand adversity but if you want to test a man's character give him power.
Abraham Lincoln.
Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/abrahamlin101343.html#ztILYiauLZ2KGJkw.99
Christian Liberty
Well-known member
Thanks.
All I expect is that you'll read what I post and take it at face value (Try not to read things into it.) If you still disagree, that's completely fine. Look at CultureWarrior's homosexuality thread to know what NOT to do. For instance, if I say "I think X should be legal" that does NOT mean I approve of X. That should be common sense but apparently not here:chuckle:
Sure, quoting one of the most powermongering and evil Presidents in US History. Are you seriously suggesting Lincoln didn't abuse his power? Because that would be a joke:chuckle:
Not with connie, anyway. He thinks you have to approve of everything you think people should be legally able to do. In his world, whatever isn't required, is illegal.
The only way out is to carefully limit the power any one person has, and then watch them closely. This is why government loves secrecy.