NT - Maybe Obama went too far this time

[Guest Taxed]

In a funny way I sort of miss Sarah Palin, Dick Morris and Glen Beck on FoxNews giving advice to Republicans!

[FLORIDA TAX MAN]

In a funny way I sort of miss Sarah Palin, Dick Morris and Glen Beck on FoxNews giving advice to Republicans!

They still have their Bill O'Smeary and Rush Limbutterbutt telling them what to do.

[BulldogTom]

HOW do you know what she did or did not do ??

Well, if she hadn't fallen over backwards and gotten amnesia when they asked her to testify, we might know.

Tom

Hollister, CA

[JohnH]

Benghazi security funding cut by a Republican House bent on cutting government to the bone so rich republicans could have TAX CUTS. Yes that what I see being brought up in the 2016 elections.

Let us continue the G BUSH 2 fantasy of cutting government, tax cuts for the rich, and going to war.

One week McCain wants war in Syria, the next he wants Benghazi outrage. And TAX CUTS

AND screw seniors out of their social security (how many Americans will die then ???)

Oh yeah lets bring back the INCOMPETENCE and STUPIDITY of BUSH 2...lets wreck the economy again.

Well, it took a little longer than I expected, but we finally got to the tired old "Blame Bush" refrain.

[joanmcq]

For Tom: It has become difficult to keep track of all the different "-gates" the Obama administration has suddenly found itself embroiled in: perhaps an appropriate name would be Gate-r-gate? And with the just concluded farce in which Jay Carney passed off all AP-related questions to Eric Holder, who in turn recused himself and told the media to please crucify the Deputy AG instead, it is unlikely that any material new information will be disclosed any time soon. However, courtesy of The Hill, we at least have some insight into the first gross offense by the administration revealed last week: the targeting of one political group over another by the supposedly impartial IRS. Specifically, attached below is the full 7 page questionnaire sent by the IRS to the Liberty Township Tea Party containing a list of 35 questions. Listed here one can find such pearls as "provide details regarding all of your activity on Facebook and Twitter", "Provide a list of all issues that are important to your organization", "do you or will you rate candidates", "you have conducted polls of of your membership to determine which candidates and issues they are supporting. Provide details on this process", "Do you conduct media advertisements lobbying for or against legislation?", "Do you directly or indirectly communicate with members of legislative bodies? If so, explain the amount and nature of the communication", and finally "provide details regarding your relationship with Justin-Bink(sic) Thomas." It appears Justin is someone who according to the Daily Kos, "claims that the government is bailing out too many people who don't want to work." Surely, for the IRS, this is "need to know" information. For the actual letter, you need to go to her link.

Pray tell, how are most of these questions not reasonable to determine if the org is engaged in political activities, which are prohibited for 501©(3) orgs?

[JohnH]

Pray tell, how are most of these questions not reasonable to determine if the org is engaged in political activities, which are prohibited for 501©(3) orgs?

They're unreasonable partly because these organizations are not applying for 501 ( c )(3) status.

[joanmcq]

From what I've read, they were applying as educational orgs, which is under 501©(3).

[JohnH]

Like moveon.org for example? (501 ( c) (4) affiliate

or Russ Feingfold;'s ProgressivesUnited?

No problems there, I assume.

[Guest Taxed]

Let's wait for the hearings and investigations to conclude! I believe the acting IRS commissioner is gone!

The Repubs are making it look like the entire IRS is "evil". I am sure most don't consider the IRS to be their friend BUT them someone has to do that job of collecting taxes to pay the bills!

Even in Jesus's days they hated the tax collector!

[BulldogTom]

From what I've read, they were applying as educational orgs, which is under 501©(3).

joanmcq, the are not applying under 501 ( c ) 3, they are applying under 501 ( c ) 4. This has been a scam since the United case handed down by the supreme court. It is a big way to raise funds for your political activities and not have to follow campaign finance laws. It is also a way to reward doners by giving them jobs at these organizations. It has been abused by the right and left, dems and repubs, and independents as well. It is mostly a sham.

The issue is that the IRS singled out a group that had one political leaning. They intentionally targeted the right, and in particular the tea party. If it had been every application, I don't think it would smell as bad as it does right now. It also coincided with an election cycle, which is very peculiar.

Someone directed those IRS employees to screen those applications the way they did. It could be a manager at Cincinnatti, or someone at IRS in Washington. I don't think some low level civil servant just decided to do this and no one knew what they were doing. In 2011, congress held a hearing and specifically asked Commissioner Shulman (sp?) if they were targeting groups and he said no. He is gone, but the lie is now exposed. If he did not know, he should have investigated at that time. Apparently, sometime in late 2011 or early 2012, the criteria changed from "tea party" to "constitutional education" as the trigger for increased scrutiny. Why did that happen? No one is claiming they made the change in policy. Again, the story is low level IRS employees trying to get through a mountain of paperwork.

I don't buy it. Someone at IRS directed this. At what level they were at, I don't know. But it is clear they wanted to target the right. And that is the issue.

All we want to know is who directed this to happen.

Tom

Hollister, CA

[joanmcq]

Move.on collects donations, but they aren't tax deductible. They admit to and are a lobbying organization.

[Guest Taxed]

Remember how offended the Supreme court justices were when Pres. Obama called them out for a bad decision in the Citizens United case at the state of union address!

That has opened the floodgates to use the tax loophole of 501©(4) status for political activities and raise funds without much oversight of campaign finance laws and limits. Just ask Karl Rove and others! Yes it happens on both sides so I am not blaming just one side.

That is why i believe we need to pay close attention and scrutiny to all applications for 501©..... status. That section is being abused. They really need to narrow the scope of what activities will ONLY be allowed for non-profit status.

And finally we need serious campaign finance law reform. There should be a limit on spending and I think all candidates should be given some airtime and a forum for genuine political debate.

[Jack from Ohio]

Tax exempt and charitable are two entirely different creatures.

Everyone thinks tax exempt is charitable. More low information thinking. Tom is correct in his assessment of 501( c )4 organizations.

[JohnH]

Move.on collects donations, but they aren't tax deductible. They admit to and are a lobbying organization.

" Together, we can change who has influence in politics — from a few big-money donors to millions of small donors. Make a contribution to help take back our democracy from corporate special interests, build a progressive economy to restore the American Dream, elect progressive leaders, and fight on critical issues for our country. You can also make a monthly contribution or contribute by check, or you can donate to MoveOn.org Civic Action, our 501©4 affiliate. "

So did you really not know abut Moven.org Civic Action, or is it just convienient to ignore certain subterfuges when the organization's goals line up with your own?

[BulldogTom]

" Together, we can change who has influence in politics — from a few big-money donors to millions of small donors. Make a contribution to help take back our democracy from corporate special interests, build a progressive economy to restore the American Dream, elect progressive leaders, and fight on critical issues for our country. You can also make a monthly contribution or contribute by check, or you can donate to MoveOn.org Civic Action, our 501©4 affiliate. "

So did you really not know abut Moven.org Civic Action, or is it just convienient to ignore certain subterfuges when the organization's goals line up with your own?

John,

I am willing to bet joanmcq did not know that. She is not the type to put a statement out there that she knows to be untrue. I don't always agree with her politics, but she has always been a stand up kinda person on this board.

Just my 2 cents.

Tom

Hollister, CA

[kcjenkins]

HOW do you know what she did or did not do ??

That is the point, FTM. It's been over eight months, and she still will not tell us anything about what she did. What calls she made? What orders she gave when she got that call? Don't you think the public has a right to know that? Her only answer was "What difference does it make?" While it won't make a difference to the outcome of that attack, it sure does make a difference to whether anyone should trust her to be President.

[jklcpa]

Quote: <<I am willing to bet joanmcq did not know that. She is not the type to put a statement out there that she knows to be untrue. I don't always agree with her politics, but she has always been a stand up kinda person on this board. >>

Agree with Bulldog Tom. Sometimes you really have to follow the money trail back to see what some of the tax-exempts' real agendas are and who's really behind them.

[joanmcq]

No, I didn't know about Moveon.org's new branch. I haven't been following them that much lately; extremism from all sides pisses me off. I hate it when I can tell that manipulative words are being used to elicit an emotional response. Right or left. I see a lot of it being used on this issue from the right, mostly because KC posts a lot of it on this board.

[kcjenkins]

IRS Head resigns, IRS Stole 10 Million Medical Records, IRS Targeted Over 75 Conservative Groups, and now...

IRS Ordered Conservative Student Groups to Hand Over "Lists" of Other Conservatives.

The first rule of dams is that, when they break, they break big. That seems to be the case with the IRS scandal, which gets worse by the hour.

The first big crack in the damn was the IRS’s admission (“coincidentally” made after the Inspector General completed a report) that it engaged in excessive scrutiny of conservative groups that were seeking tax-exempt status, not because their paperwork was wrong, but because they had such words as “Tea Party,” “Liberty” or “Constitution in their name. Lois Lerner, the head of the IRS Exempt Organizations Division, said that maybe 75 conservative organizations had been scrutinized. Currently, the correct number is closer to 500.

Starting in 2011, no conservative group got automatic approval as a tax-exempt organization. Liberal groups, however, continued to be passed through the system. The reviews were intrusive, asking about donor lists, web pages, and officers’ reading material. They delved into Facebook accounts. The IRS even demanded that, to be tax exempt, groups had to promote material directly contrary to their core mission – such as demanding that a pro-Life group preach abortion.

Crack two in the dam was when it turned out that the IRS was targeting conservatives with audits. The IRS has claimed that this is just coincidence because there are so many rich conservatives out there. (It would be useful to look at comparably-placed rich liberals, such as George Soros, and see their audit history.)

Crack three in the dam is the leaks. The National Organization for Marriage (“NOM”) contends that the IRS leaked confidential financial documents to a rival Leftist organization. The Huffington Post then used that leaked document to question Mitt Romney’s support for traditional marriage. NOM plans to sue the IRS. It also appears that the IRS leaked Koch Industry documents to Austin Goolsbee, who directed Obama’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board.

Crack four in the dam is interference with legitimate educational matters. Kevin Kookogey, a Tennessee lawyer sought tax-exempt status for mentoring a group that trained high school and college students in political philosophy. The agency responded by deluging the attorney with 95 questions (actually 31 questions divided into subparts), and demanded that he produce a list identifying every student who had been or would be trained:

And now comes crack five, which just might be the one to bring the entire dam down. It turns out that the IRS is facing a class action lawsuit charging it with improperly accessing – and then stealing — more than 60 million personal medical records. As you read those words, remember that the IRS will be the agency tasked with enforcing ObamaCare – it gets to penalize those whom it thinks are failing to comply properly.

Courthousenews.com reports that an unnamed healthcare provider is bringing the suit against the IRS and against 15 unnamed agents. Included amongst those Americans whose medical records were illegally accessed were all California state judges. There’s a rather charming irony to that last one, since California has an overwhelmingly Leftist judiciary. Nor were the stolen records bland lists of appointments. Instead, they contained information about psychological counseling, gynecological counseling, sexual and drug treatment, and all sorts of other stuff people like to keep private.

All of the above speaks to an appalling level of corruption and political bias at the IRS. None of those stories, however, answers why the IRS would do these things. After all, the employees are usually career people who serve from one administration through to another.

Just a guess that might explain the willingness with which IRS employees embraced this anti-conservative corruption: the National Treasury Employees Union (“NTEU”), which represents Treasury Department employees, including those who work at the IRS. During the 2012 campaign, it donated $580,412 to federal candidates. The party breakdown was as follows: 94% of donations went to Democrats; and 4% of donations went to Republicans. In 2010, when Tea Party furor was at its height, and Americans were demanding lower taxes, the breakdown was even more uneven. The union donated a total of $541,700, with 98% of those donations going to Democrats and 2% to Republicans.

The NTEU is a government union, but it hews to the Left of Left. And as a union, it has the absolute right to inundate its members with a constant stream of “educational” materials. These materials rather consistently denigrate Republican policies, while elevating Democrat policies. It’s inevitable that people begin to to reflect the intellectual environment in which they’re immersed. While the IRS might technically be a non-partisan branch of the government, the reality is that it’s a Democrat union shop.

The Union was ecstatic about ObamaCare, which would pump over a billion dollars into the IRS. Back in February 2012, Colleen Kelley, president of the NTEU was thrilled that the Obama government was increasing IRS funding so as to “permit the agency to improve services through increasing response rates to inquiries, deploying enforcement resources to what the White House called high-return integrity activities and by modernizing information technology systems.” More money and new employees (all of whom will pay union dues) will be forthcoming as ObamaCare really ramps up.

As the famous saying goes – Follow the money. And in this case, the IRS’s partisan attacks against conservatives lead right back to Obama initiatives that flood the IRS with more money and more agents. That kind of financial corruption is enough to turn the head of even the most bland careerists, whose primary goal is to make sure that they have a job.

[JohnH]

Tom: You're right. I should have been more careful with my wording and I agree about Joan being a stand up person.

[kcjenkins]

No, I didn't know about Moveon.org's new branch. I haven't been following them that much lately; extremism from all sides pisses me off. I hate it when I can tell that manipulative words are being used to elicit an emotional response. Right or left. I see a lot of it being used on this issue from the right, mostly because KC posts a lot of it on this board.

That's true, Joan. I admit to being really upset by what is going on in DC right now, and wanting to alert people to look deeper than the slanted, and very limited info coming from the MSM. Please note, though, that while I don't always agree with you, I don't attack you for your beliefs, because I respect that you are honest about how you see things. Giving you more info, in hopes of broadening your POV, is never intended as an attack. Not everyone on the other side, though, is as honest as you are Joan.

[JohnH]

Just a clarification or two here. Moveon Civic Action is hardly new - it was formed in 2001. I think the Statute of Limitations on the word "new" has long ago expired after 12 years.

The organization has always blurred the line between its two arms, projecting an illusion of a single organization to those who don't know (or don't want to know) the difference. To me it's just another example of the cynical way Left-leaning organizations manipulate well-meaning but clueless Liberals with their particular brand of "openness and honesty." I agree this happens on both sides, but it really fascinates me to observe the reaction when Liberals tie themselves in knots trying to defend this nonsense if it fits their political leanings.

[kcjenkins]

When a Tennessee lawyer asked the IRS for tax-exempt status for a mentoring group that trained high school and college students about conservative political philosophy, the agency responded with a list of 95 questions in 31 parts, including an ultimatum for a list of everyone the group had trained, or planned to train.

‘Provide details regarding all training you have provided or will provide,’ the IRS demanded. ‘Indicate who has received or will receive the training and submit copies of the training material.’

That question was part of the tax collection agency’s February 14, 2012 letter to Kevin Kookogey. founder of the group Linchpins of Liberty. He had submitted his application 13 months earlier.

[Catherine]

https://www.thomasmoresociety.org/2013/05/15/broadening-irs-victims-include-pro-life-advocates-as-congress-investigates/

The latest bit of the dam to give way...

FWIW -- I have been called a "conservative" here -- but that is NOT the correct descriptive. Constitutional Libertarian (or Classic Liberal) is the correct term. And I have criticized, very strongly, most every president we have had for the last hundred years and more; do not attempt to complain about how I "hate Obama, probably because he's black." I could not care less about the man himself, the color of his skin, or anything else about him. I deeply despise any attempt to turn this land of freedom and liberty into yet another poverty-stricken enclave of collectivist misery. That work has been going on since the early 1900's (READ the Ten Planks of the Communist Party and see how many have been implemented here!!!), and Khrushchev's "boast" in the early 60's was, so far as I can see, a flat-out statement of fact.

My focus is always on the Constitution -- and I state flat-out that most of the folks here who complain about the government "not doing enough" do not (1) realize that the federal government was set up that way ON PURPOSE, (2) do not know what any of the very excellent reasons for those limitations were, and (3) how the poor, the elderly, and the ill would ultimately (and in short order!) be significantly BETTER off when we return to the Constitution and get the federal government OUT of areas it does not belong. The Constitution was instituted to protect our rights. Rights are based on property (starting with the first property you ever own, your body, the day you are born). Therefore, by inevitable concatenation, the Constitution protects our property. You cannot protect your property by instituting practices from a system that denies private ownership of property. John Adams said, "The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the law of God, anarchy and tyranny commence." He was right.

We set up a federal government to protect liberty -- dangerous, exhilarating, prosperity-producing liberty. EVERYTHING else was left to the states, and to the people. Every "why don't they" question should properly be "why don't I." See how much more power to actually HELP we would have if the federal government did not unConstitutionally hinder our every effort -- by studying the actual document and the reasons behind the choices that were made. Read the reservations the people and the states had -- ALL based on fears of the federal government usurping their areas of jurisdiction! Those fears were well-founded. (See the Anti-Federalist Papers; some hyperbole but they were right. Also the first case of "political spin" as the "anti-federalists" were actually strong supporters of federalism; it was the "federalists" who wanted a stronger central government, which is NOT federalism!)

Start with Michael Badnarik's "Good To Be King" available only at his web site, constitutionpreservation.org, or the writings of attorney Publius Huldah at her blog, publiushuldah.wordpress.com, or see some of the articles on the Constitution linked through the web site constitutiondecoded.com on the page "links to articles."

[Guest Taxed]

I hope that during the hearings they carefully look at sec. 501©(4) organizations and look at the original intent of that section with respect to the phrase "Exclusive" and "Social welfare".

The definition and what organizations do for the "Exclusive" and "Social Welfare" needs to be tightened.

Hopefully that will avoid this going forward!