The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

Well, this will certainly get patric's panties all wadded up; right? Government misusing/abusing its authority in order to silence/punish its enemies and all? 

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2013-05-10/irs-apologizes-for-targeting-conservative-groups

Bwa hah hah hah hah!

They have nothing to fear if they're following the law...right?

Oh, nothing except being punished for exercising their first amendment rights. Thanks for both the softball, and letting everyone in this forum see your ignorance/bias.

I was pretending to do one of your posts. You critiqued yourself quite accurately.

Maybe instead of castigating the IRS in this instance, we should applaud them for rigorously pursuing possible tax evasion. I seem to recall Guido being up in arms about a portion of the population that doesn't pay federal taxes. It would be consistent to demand that political organizations pay their fair share too.

How about churches also?  Why should churches continue to receive tax exempt status?

Out of the woodwork comes all sorts finding ways to justify government pursuit of interest groups that just don't comply with our current government's message. And yes, I am upset that 47% pay no federal income tax, to engage your straw man for a moment. And to build it out, chances are those 47% are not in large part tea partiers or conservatives--those are the folks PAYING the taxes and which the government apparently is so dissatisfied they should not have any exempt status if they organize.  Incidentally, the IRS APOLOGIZED, for what that is worth. So they have expressly acknowledged wrongdoing.

And "whatever" waterboy.

So that percentage of our population that doesn't make enough money to require payment of federal income taxes should be somehow forced to pay them, yet astro-turf organizations used as fronts to hide the influx of cash from a few wealthy individuals and corporations should be tax exempt.  OK.  Got it.

Because no churches have flown any planes into their offices?

More straw man bullcrap. Try to stay focused with me in this thread.

The government is targeting individuals/groups for additional IRS scrutiny. Okay.

The government is focusing on one group of people. Okay?

This one group of people doesn't like this current administration. Okay?

This intrudes upon and perhaps violates their First Amendment rights to free speech and association. Okay?

And by the way, the IRS has been doing this for some time now.


http://gretawire.foxnewsinsider.com/2013/05/11/ap-exclusive-senior-irs-officials-knew-irs-targeting-tea-party-groups-as-early-as-2011/

Let's walk down memory lane, just a few months ago when some in here were all DAMNED upset about a private company kicking out a bunch of atheists from their restaurant. Oklahoma Joe's can't do that; that's discrimination. But when the IRS, a government entity, targets groups with  “Tea Party,” ”Patriot” or “9/12 Project”, that is not discrimination because those people are "astroturf" [thank Nancy Pelosi clone] and deserve it.   

You are the biggest damned hypocrite in this forum. You whine, grumble, and decry government thuggery, and here you given the classic example of the most widespread and intrusive form of that thuggery. Your response, trying (and failing miserably) to joke about.

Frankly, I 'm glad I posted this story. Shows how far Tulsa's left will go to excuse its own failings.

I actually agree with Guido here, but only to a point, of course. The IRS should never single out an entity for special scrutiny because its political philosophy is on the right. Likewise, it should not single out an entity because it has a political philosophy on the left. But let's look at the facts in this case and see if a general rule can emerge that even Guido will find acceptable.

The organizations in question were non-profit corporations who had filed for tax-exempt status under Sec. 501(c)3 of the tax code. One of the things a 501(c)3 non-profit cannot do is engage in partisan political activity. That means no advocacy for or against a political party nor any advocacy for or against a political candidate. 501(c)3 non-profits can engage in issue advocacy, but can't support or attack candidates or parties. That is the price of tax-exempt status. The IRS requires any organization seeking recognition as a tax-exempt organization to file a lengthy questionnaire, along with copies of the organization's articles of incorporation, it's Certificate of Incorporation, its bylaws, and a conflict of interest policy governing its directors. An organization failing to prohibit partisan political activity, among other things, will not be granted recognition. Period.

I haven't seen the documents submitted by these organizations, but I assume their Articles and bylaws contain the requisite prohibitions. In the ordinary case, all other things being in line, the IRS issues its letter granting recognition. But this was not an ordinary case. The organizations in question included in their corporate names brands such as "tea party" that are closely identified with a faction of the Republican Party. Though the inclusion of "tea party" in the name should not automatically disqualify the organization from recognition, does it not justify some degree of higher scrutiny than the ordinary case, just to make sure that tax-exempt contributions aren't funding partisan political activity? And should this be the case regardless of which side of the political spectrum the organization falls?

So how is this for the rule? An organization seeking tax exempt status under Sec. 501(c)3 must refrain now and in the future from partisan political activity. (This is current law) Any organization, liberal or conservative, that is stupid enough to use a brand closely identified with a political party or candidate shall be given extra scrutiny to ensure compliance with the law.

In the case the brand borrowing came from the right. Any liberal organization doing the same thing should be subjected to the same level of scrutiny.

I think the agents were going after low hanging fruit and forgot that even very focused issue advocacy is consistent with tax-exempt status.

You should protest.
Go downtown and pitch a tent in some city park.
You'll meet new friends, and maybe some government representative will talk to you and rinse your sinuses for you.

Pardon me for being ignorant on this...but I kind of assumed that every administration uses the IRS as a weapon. Are you sure that this is the first time it has ever happened?

The GOP may not be the only ones to play the victim card here:


The Internal Revenue Service's scrutiny of conservative groups went beyond those with "tea party" or "patriot" in their names—as the agency admitted Friday—to also include ones worried about government spending, debt or taxes, and even ones that lobbied to "make America a better place to live," according to new details of a government probe.

The new details suggest that agency workers were examining statements in applications for tax-exempt status to determine whether groups had political leanings.

Tax-exempt social-welfare groups organized under section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code are allowed to engage in some political activity, but the primary focus of their efforts must remain promoting social welfare. That social-welfare activity can include lobbying and advocating for issues and legislation, but not outright political-campaign activity. But some of the rules leave room for IRS officials to make judgment calls and probe individual groups for further information.

According to the report, by June 2011 some IRS specialists were probing applications using the following criteria: "issues include government spending, government debt or taxes; education of the public by advocacy/lobbying to 'make America a better place to live'; statements in the case file criticize how the country is being run."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324715704578478851998004528.html

Really? I didn't know that. Watch the George Will clip in this story, and just imagine...

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2013/05/12/george-will-if-bush-had-irs-going-after-progressives-we-would-have-al

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/05/10/no-dirty-politics-in-irs-investigations-of-tea-party/

No Dirty Politics In IRS Investigations Of Tea Party

The conservative blogosphere is all-atwitter this afternoon over the revelation that the Internal Revenue Service targeted various Tea Party groups in the days leading up to the presidential election of 2012.

Sadly for the critics of the president, things are not always as they initially appear to be and the effort to paint the improper IRS activity as a White House directed political dirty trick is unlikely to gain the traction opponents would like to see catch fire.

Keep in mind that the kerfuffle does not involve the targeting of groups for audits seeking evidence of a failure to pay taxes. Rather, the problem involved the IRS’s review of applications filed by the various entities seeking tax-exempt status under the law.

At the time in question, many newly formed political organizations were seeking IRS certification that would allow them to  avoid paying taxes on funds raised—the overwhelming majority of these organizations being Tea Party related groups. As the IRS believed that many of those filing for exemptions were stretching the limits of qualification, some low-level staffers at the agency’s Cincinnati, Ohio office decided to target for closer review those organizations with “Tea Party” sounding names, such as “patriot” and, of course, “Tea Party”. In the effort to dig deeper to determine if these groups qualified, the agency people involved asked many of the filing organizations to disclose names of those who had made contributions along with other data they deemed necessary to determine if the group qualified for tax free status.

The problem is that the agents involved were not randomly conducting these checks on all the political organizations seeking tax free status and were specifically targeting the Tea Party related groups. This was, clearly, improper activity which is why the IRS issued today’s apology.

What’s that you say? You still don’t believe that the White House was not involved in this? That’s what I thought.

Maybe then, it will interest you to know that there are only two officials at the IRS that are political appointments—the commissioner (who is the boss) and the chief legal counsel.  And while you may be thinking that it would be a piece of cake for the White House to place a call to the Commissioner and nudge him into putting a little heat on Tea Party groups so that they would be kept busy defending themselves from government annoyance rather than putting their energies into defeating the President, it would not have been quite so simple a task for the White House to accomplish.

Why?

Because the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service during the period in question was Douglas Shulman, a political appointee of President George W. Bush. In fact, not only was Commissioner Shulman a Bush appointee, he would certainly have had no motivation to do the political bidding of a Democrat president considering that Mr. Shulman had already announced prior to the election that he would be stepping down from his post in November.

If you imagine that the President’s staff had the ability to go around the top political appointee at the IRS and attempt to influence the civil servants who work at the agency, consider how many levels of civil servants the White House staff would have had to persuade to do their bidding given that those who pursued the policy were well down the totem-pole of seniority, working away at the Cincinnati office.

Indeed, to suggest that the White House could get career civil servants to do its political dirty work would truly defy the laws of political reality.

If you doubt this—and you are someone who believes that the State Department behaved improperly in the Benghazi matter—consider the inability of State to direct the three highly placed State Department civil servants who testified before Congress this week to do as the politicians asked. This should give you some indication as to just how impossible it is for elected or politically appointment officials to get government civil servants to participate in their political schemes—let alone keep it all a secret heading into a presidential election.

Of course, all the obvious and logical explanations in the world for what really happened here will prove insufficient when it comes to  persuading some Tea Party groups that this was not the work of the White House.

As proof of what we can expect, check out what Tea Party Patriots co-founder Jenny Beth Martin had to say when calling for President Obama to personally apologize—

“It is suspicious that the activity of these ‘low-level workers’ was unknown to IRS leadership at the time it occurred. President Obama must also apologize for his administration ignoring repeated complaints by these broad grassroots organizations of harassment by the IRS in 2012, and make concrete and transparent steps today to ensure this never happens again.”

Clearly, Ms. Martin has very little grasp on how widespread the activities of the IRS are if she imagines that, in the big picture, the relatively small number of reviews of Tea Party related applications in the Cincinnati office was going to somehow capture the attention of the IRS Commissioner…who happens to be a Republican appointee.

One wonders if Ms. Martin’s indignation has anything to do with the fact that she and her husband were indebted to the IRS in the amount of over half a million dollars when they filed bankruptcy in 2008? Maybe it is Ms. Martin who owes the apology?

Still, the opportunity to make some political hay over the error will likely prove irresistible to the GOP.

And now this. Is there some reason Eric Holder still has a job?  Oh right, Peter Principle.

Too bad there's not an (R) as president right now, impeachment proceedings would have already started.


http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57584275/justice-department-obtains-2-months-of-ap-phone-records-in-probe/

Where was AP's outrage when the government asked AT&T to eavesdrop on the rest of us without warrants?  Where was their anger when the Patriot Act allowed telecoms to intercept nearly all communications in the country?

The AP didn't break any laws nor violate anyone's liberties if they were not expressing outrage, they had no obligation to. OTOH, it appears the DOJ has trampled on the liberties of a number of reporters and their sources, and apparently has broken laws it is expected to enforce.

Where's the call for accountability under this administration?  Excuse it because of poor prior examples? 

All the reports I have heard so far said that 300 organizations were pulled out for further investigation.  75 were the tea's.  The right question that could provide adequate information would be to see how many in the same number of years slid on through without issue and how many of those were tea related.  I bet there were plenty of each that got on through with no issues.

And why were the 300 pulled out to look at - what is the "official explanation"?  If it was only tea related, why did the other 75% get pulled?


Oh, and for the record, lest anyone forget...I am NO fan of the IRS.  And in fact, feel it should be abolished, or at least reduced by 90% (or more!)  As I have expressed before around here.

Likely because it's a witch hunt, just like Benghazi is turning out to be.  There were 30 diplomats killed during Bush's watch as President, yet there was never this level of hand-wringing like I've seen here.

The Teaheads cherry picked this.  Liberals do the same.  It's just the Tea Partiers screech louder.

Did someone say First Amendment outrage?

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/editorials/article/Feds-seizure-of-AP-phone-records-breach-of-trust-4512453.php

Here is a list (from the Daily Kos)....

Donald Rumsfeld was Secretary of War Defense between 2001 and 2006, so none of this should be news to him:
June 14, 2002, U.S. consulate in Karachi, Pakistan
Suicide bomber kills 12 and injures 51.

February 20, 2003, international diplomatic compound in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
Truck bomb kills 17.

February 28, 2003, U.S. consulate in Karachi, Pakistan
Gunmen on motorcycles killed two consulate guards.

July 30, 2004, U.S. embassy in Taskkent, Uzbekistan
Suicide bomber kills two.

December 6, 2004, U.S. consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
Militants stormed and occupied perimeter wall. Five killed, 10 wounded.

March 2, 2006, U.S. consulate in Karachi, Pakistan
Suicide car bomber killed four, including a U.S. diplomate directly targeted by the assailants.

September 12, 2006, U.S. embassy in Damascus, Syria
Gunmen attacked embassy with grenades, automatic weapons, and a car bomb (though second truck bomb failed to detonate). One killed and 13 wounded.

January 12, 2007, U.S. embassy in Athens, Greece
A rocket-propelled grenade was fired at the embassy building. No one was injured.

July 9, 2008, U.S. consulate in Istanbul, Turkey
Armed men attacked consulate with pistols and shotguns. Three policemen killed.

March 18, 2008, U.S. embassy in Sana'a, Yemen
Mortar attack misses embassy, hits nearby girls' school instead.

September 17, 2008, U.S. embassy in Sana'a, Yemen
Militants dressed as policemen attacked the embassy with RPGs, rifles, grenades and car bombs. Six Yemeni soldiers and seven civilians were killed. Sixteen more were injured.
So did those attacks (and the 9/11 ones, for that matter) happen because of "perceived American weakness"? Is that what Rumsfeld wants to argue—that our country's diplomatic missions were targeted because George Bush's America was perceived as weak?

As for Obama, the attacks in Cairo and Benghazi are the first two attacks on a U.S. diplomatic mission in an ostensibly peaceful country during his entire presidency—and they were sparked by that idiot wingnut Islamophobe Terri Jones. The embassy in Afghanistan was targeted by the Taliban last Sept. 13, but that's a country at war.

If you buy Rumsfeld's nonsense, you can tally the numbers to determine which administration was "perceived weaker."

Wait, now people left wingnuts are claiming Terry Jones is responsible for Benghazi?

It took this guy how long to notice the black helicopters?
Welcome to the real world.

Nnnooooo....I  am  typing  slowly  so  you  can  understand   .... 


The RWRE is getting their panties in a wad over 4 killed in Benghazi - which is perfectly fine with me - as long as we revisit the past history and get all twisted up over the previous failures, too.  If Obama deserves impeachment, Bush deserved it 8 times as much!  I think war crime trials may be in order all around!

I completely agree. I am sad for the victims of Benghazi and trying to make political hay from it seems insincere if you ignore the attacks that have occurred under a republican President.

Bwahahahaha.
I'm going to be disappointed if the late night folks don't do something outstanding with this one.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/16/us/politics/under-fire-white-house-pushes-to-revive-media-shield-bill.html?hp&_r=0
(http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2013/05/16/us/16holder/16holder-articleLarge.jpg)
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration sought on Wednesday to revive legislation that would provide greater protections to reporters from penalties for refusing to identify confidential sources, and that would enable journalists to ask a federal judge to quash subpoenas for their phone records, a White House official said.

Translation: "We vow to protect you from unscrupulous, unconstitutional and unethical actions by people like us!  We will do whatever it takes to legislate against our own efforts, even as we effort against this legislation."

This should be good for another two years of speaking tours.  I believe this puppy has finally discovered its own tail.

pancakes?  The IRS is being sued for seizing the medical records of one million people!

http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/15/irs-sued-for-improperly-seizing-the-medical-records-of-10-million-americans/ (http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/15/irs-sued-for-improperly-seizing-the-medical-records-of-10-million-americans/)

I'll hunt around and see where the RWRE Busheviks said a video led to those attacks, and screamed that "what difference does it make", etc. Nice straw man you have there.

Interesting, one must find more about this incident in the foreign press.  It's not playing so well in our lame stream.


Is this just a fascinating coincidence that Malik Obama could get an application approved in 30 days as well as getting it approved retroactive by two years?  I'm quite certain if any of us had pulled such a shenanigan, we'd be sitting in El Reno or Leavenworth awaiting trial for mail fraud and tax evasion.

Tuesday killing's of U.S. Ambassador to Libya John Christopher Stevens is the result of "President Obama's failure to lead and his failed foreign policy of appeasement and apology," U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe said Wednesday.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/article.aspx/Inhofe_Libya_ambassadors_death_a_result_of_Obamas_failure/20120912_335_0_tuesda686626

Reality, guido....reality!!

Where is your - or the RWRE "Somewhat Righteous Indignation" over the killing of 30 and wounding of many more when it happened so many times in the previous regime?

Just another reason why there should be no tax exempt organizations....

LOL!  Why blame the tax code?  Why not blame the politicians who use it as an instrument of force.

If the teacher gives little Johnny too many cookies and he gets fat, it's not the cookie's fault.

The tax code IS the problem in this case.  Why are there 27 types of tax exempt organizations??  And why would "Title Holding Corporations or Trusts with Multiple Parents" need tax exempt status?  Or Social and Recreation Clubs?  Or one of my favorites - Cemetery Companies? 

1, 2 and 3...ok.  Get rid of the rest of them.  They are just political patronage payback stuff.

Or if they aren't gonna do that, then make #28 for Civil and Personal Rights Preservation Organizations.  That way the NRA can get tax exempt status!   They do a lot more toward social good in this country than a lot of those.   Domestic Fraternal Societies and Associations - yeah...rich little college boys playing their way through school!!

You're right.  There should me a more fair method of taxation!

Don't forget labor unions.

The issue I have with many "non-profits" is the organization shows no profit or plows it back into property or its works but often times there's someone at the top who has become incredibly wealthy as a result of tax-free contributions.  Morris Dees of the SPLC comes to mind as one of those.  Or how about Fred Phelps of Westboro Church.  Both disgusting individuals who are taking advantage of the tax code.  I realize they are taxed on their personal earnings or income from the NPO.  Westboro Baptist likely blurs the lines between "church and state" when they protest military funerals.  Churches with predominantly minority congregations who bus people to the polls or mention someone they should vote for during Sunday announcements certainly are crossing the line but it's not enforced.  Why would that be? Mainly because in poorer people and minorities primarily vote Democrat?

I attended a church service just after Bill Clinton defeated Bush The First back in '92. The preacher said, "Well, the election is over, and our guy lost." Now, prior to the election, he'd never endorsed a candidate from the pulpit - and that's as it should be.  Still, he was an example of the not overly subtle endorsement of conservative candidates here in Oklahoma.   

That's why I said get rid of everything past #3.  501(c)3.


You touch on the Westboro - how a non-profit is used as a political organization - THAT is exactly the issue here.  The IRS set these 75 aside PLUS another 225 for further review.  NONE of which were denied status after that "further review".  So where is the issue here?  Well, there really is none.  But the RWRE....well, you know how they are....that's why you are recovering, isn't it?  From the hijacked Republican party....

The issue is, these organizations with obvious conservative ties in their names were made to sit and spin while progressive organizations were processed much quicker. It's been admitted that the IRS agents were deliberately delaying the applications due to the conservative nature of the groups.

As an aside, we could probably gain on our deficit issues by putting a much tighter noose on what qualifies as an NPO as well as cutting a lot of government bloat, like the IRS.  Of course if we went to a consumption-based tax system like the Fair Tax, non-profit status would likely become pretty irrelevant for many NPO's.

One office - said to be Cinncinnatti.  Probably either 1 or 2 people.  And 75 out of a total 300 set aside.  And those people - whether 1 or 2 or 20 should be eliminated.

Couple of questions that I have are what were the other 225 that were set aside?  And how many apps went through during the same time frame and what was the make up of those groups?  Specifically, how many teas went through at that office while 75 others were being reviewed?

And probably the biggest question I have is if it is more than 1 or 2 people doing this, why?  IOW, why does it take so many people to look at a relatively small number of this type of application?  Too many employees, with too much time on their hands, since they are getting into this kind of trouble!

If you are paying attention to how this is playing out, it is much bigger than just two agents.  Again, see my post above about the president's half-brother's foundation getting it's application approved in record time as well as retroactive for the two prior years when he was illegally soliciting and accepting contributions while claiming to be an NPO. 

That is unless you only get your news from MSNBC or the lamestream.

Will look into it more this weekend - last 4 days have been "out of touch" with news, so yeah, I am probably way behind the curve on this right now.

http://www.salon.com/2013/05/14/when_the_irs_targeted_liberals/

Under George W. Bush, it went after the NAACP, Greenpeace and even a liberal church

While few are defending the Internal Revenue Service for targeting some 300 conservative groups, there are two critical pieces of context missing from the conventional wisdom on the “scandal.” First, at least from what we know so far, the groups were not targeted in a political vendetta — but rather were executing a makeshift enforcement test (an ugly one, mind you) for IRS employees tasked with separating political groups not allowed to claim tax-exempt status, from bona fide social welfare organizations. Employees are given almost zero official guidance on how to do that, so they went after Tea Party groups because those seemed like they might be political. Keep in mind, the commissioner of the IRS at the time was a Bush appointee.

The second is that while this is the first time this kind of thing has become a national scandal, it’s not the first time such activity has occurred.

“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 while All Saints came under the gun, conservative churches across the country were helping to mobilize voters for Bush with little oversight. In 2006, citing the precedent of All Saints, “a group of religious leaders accused the Internal Revenue Service yesterday of playing politics by ignoring its complaint that two large churches in Ohio are engaging in what it says are political activities, in violation of the tax code,” the New York Times reported at the time. The churches essentially campaigned for a Republican gubernatorial candidate, they alleged, and even flew him on one of their planes.

Meanwhile, Citizens for Ethics in Washington filed two ethics complaints against a church in Minnesota. “You know we can’t publicly endorse as a church and would not for any candidate, but I can tell you personally that I’m going to vote for Michele Bachmann,” pastor Mac Hammond of the Living Word Christian Center in Minnesota said in 2006 before welcoming her to the church. The IRS opened an audit into the church, but it went nowhere after the church appealed the audit on a technicality.

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.”

In a letter to the IRS, Democratic Reps. Charles Rangel, Pete Stark and John Conyers wrote: “It is obvious that the timing of this IRS examination is nothing more than an effort to intimidate the members of the NAACP, and the communities the organization represents, in their get-out-the-vote effort nationwide.”

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.

As the Journal reporter, Steve Stecklow, later said in an interview, “This comes against a backdrop where a number of conservative groups have been attacking nonprofits and NGOs over their tax-exempt status. There have been hearings on Capitol Hill. There have been a number of conservative groups in Washington who have been quite critical.”

Indeed, the year before that, the Senate held a hearing on nonprofits’ political activity. Republican Sen. Charles Grassley, the then-chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, said the IRS needed better enforcement, but also “legislative changes” to better define the lines between politics and social welfare, since they had not been updated in “a generation.” Unfortunately, neither Congress nor the IRS has defined 501(c)4′s sufficiently to this day, leaving the door open for IRS auditors to make up their own, discriminatory rules.

Those cases mostly involved 501(c)3 organizations, which live in a different section of the tax code for real charities like hospitals and schools. 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.

A former IRS official told the New York Times that probably meant the applications were sent to different offices, which use slightly different standards. Different offices within the same organization that are supposed to impose the exact same rules in a consistent manner have such uneven conceptions of where to draw the line at a political group, that they can approve one organization and then deny its twin in a different state.

All of these stories suggest that while concern with the IRS posture toward conservative groups now may be merited, to fully understand the situation requires a bit of context and history.

 Alex Seitz-Wald is Salon's political reporter. Email him at aseitz-wald@salon.com, and follow him on Twitter @aseitzwald. More Alex Seitz-Wald.

Proves my point about who does the loudest screeching.

It turns out that the same organized strategy employed in softening the Benghazi story was also used to hide the IRS probe to burry it until after the election.
Now, we just need to identify the architect, and most fingers are pointing in the same direction.  This has gone beyond unethical political favoritism into the realm of conspiratorial electioneering.  I am happy that both the conservative and the liberal media is viewing this with disgust now.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=hZqROJZTf3c[/youtube]

As to the examples from the Salon article above, those were individual cases, both related to the targeting of an individual organization for activities related to reported violations.  Very different than what J. Russell George, the Treasury Department's Inspector General for Tax Administration admitted to today in testimony, that there was indeed a "Target List" composed of groups that identified themselves as conservative, or in support of the constitution, Tea Party, or the goal of making the United States a better place.  These groups were not simply threatened with revocation or rejection, they and their members were audited and investigated, in some cases by multiple government agencies including the FBI, EPA, and IRS.  When it was found that they were in compliance their applications were systematically put in limbo. That represents a coordinated effort beyond anything the IRS alone could accomplish.

As Charlie Rangle said today "this is not Democrat or Republican, it relates to the integrity of the government and we are on the same side in as far as determining how this happened."

At the least, some one(s) are going to jail for this.  

Well, everyone knows it had to be that way...it is a back and forth that is endemic to the environment in DC.

The Benghazi BS is the same kind of thing....while horrendous and worthy of action that would make heads roll - figuratively and literally - it is a whole bunch of RWRE carp about something that is vastly less significant than what happened under their regime.


Now, the AP document seizure - I haven't heard more than a few sound bites on that, but those bites make it seem very bad to me.  And since my natural inclination is at least mildly anti-government, this is the one that counts most as far as I am concerned....at least until I get more info about it.

Was anyone else aware that IRS agents are eligible for bonuses?  The really big bonuses must be approved by the President.  I'm curious what yard stick was used to gauge Sarah Hall Ingram's performance to be awarded such high bonuses while heading the tax exempt division.


http://washingtonexaminer.com/irs-tax-exemptionobamacare-exec-got-100390-in-bonuses/article/2529899

Perhaps because the deliberate undermining of a free press strikes more at the core of our liberty than whether or not a bunch of lobbyists get tax-exempt status.

You can believe in the Tea Party conspiracy theory, or you can believe that over-zealous bureaucrats took it upon themselves to scrutinize a large number of applicants who wanted to hide campaign contributions by posing as social welfare groups.

Look who got caught, and squealed the loudest.

Odd that that would happen at a time when the administration was actively campaigning against such things as outrageous corporate bonuses, with many on the left pushing the idea of a "pay tzar" to limit executive compensation.  My mind is a bit fuzzy, but I seem to recall the President calling big executive bonuses "shameful". . .of course he probably only said that a hundred times or less.

Bonuses like that are typically a reward for a "job well done."  She obviously deserved it.

I would have to agree with that, but you have to follow the sent to find the cheese. 

I think the AP Wiretap scandal may be the thread that unravels the other two.

Can't think of another reason that the White House would want to target reporters unless they were desperate to root out whistleblowers from within their own ranks before it was too late.

 

You mean like moveon.org?

http://www.moveon.org/about.html

Or Center for American Progress, America Coming Together, Democracy Alliance, and a multitude of of other vehicles for wealthy liberals to launder their political contributions...

Uh oh.  The Treasury Department's Inspector General just testified that Obama admin officials knew of the IRS targeting before the election.   http://www.businessinsider.com/irs-scandal-obama-conservatives-tea-party-inspector-general-2013-5

That is exactly opposite of what Jay Carney, and the president said.

Someone's telling a stinker. :o

Their numbers could be staggering, spanning all political parties.
The bottom line is that you shouldn't have exempt status if you are actively political,
and for a while it seemed more and more were just using it to hide money.

This pretty much sums up this round of faux outrage:

(https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/601658_10151369563386536_1467264098_n.jpg)

Democrats were so concerned about "voter suppression" via voter ID programs or is it only a concern when they fear the voice of their voters may be suppressed?.

Where's the concern about an attempt to mute conservative voices by inhibiting vehicles to carry those voices during campaign seasons?

There's no faux outrage here.  Every single American should be concerned that the IRS can selectively target groups or people simply because either there's a systemic bias (which it's appearing this ran much further than two rogue agents in Ohio) or the actions of individuals within the department could carry out actions based on political bias or an outright personal vendetta on their neighbor.  The IRS is the most powerful bureaucracy in the United States.  Abuses within that agency need to be taken serious.

You are exactly right. 
That's why its so childish for the GOP to want to stand out as the sole victim.

This should be a non-partisan cause.

Like the boy who cried wolf, the Republicans should not be taken seriously every time they try to drum up another supposed scandal involving the Obama administration. Sure, it energizes their base and keeps those advertising dollars flowing to Fox News and Rush Limbaugh. 

The Republicans should be treated with contempt and sarcasm.  They've earned it.

(http://www.farleftside.com/2013/5-17-13-lapelgate.gif)   

Here ya go...

(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-hwXhXDr-Xxo/Tf9_f5VXKeI/AAAAAAAADy0/XbXbcKx2Mtg/s400/Straw_man4.jpg)

Kind of like your response:

FAIL

They all sound like screeching girls with their knees skinned up.  Where was the outrage when NAACP and other progressive groups were targeted in 2004.  Guess the screeching is loudest when the baggers are getting looked at.

Reg Henry wrote this about the scandals. And no, I didn't crib the boy-cries-wolf bit from him:

And so it goes. From the moment President Barack Obama was inaugurated, the hate machine was cranked up. This happened with the last occupant of the White House, too, but that was a Model T hate machine compared with the super-duper, industrial-strength lie mixer rolled out for Mr. Obama. No other president in memory has had to fend off claims that he was not actually an American -- and that was just for starters.

...These scandals took off to the extent that a squadron of concrete balloons takes off. For this, the usual suspects blamed the mainstream media, not the more obvious fact that the people pushing these scandals for their own political advantage had about as much credibility as used-car salesmen on a shabby lot. That's still the problem.


http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/opinion/reg-henry/obamas-opponents-do-a-lot-of-crying-wolf-687665/#ixzz2TkoAyF4u (http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/opinion/reg-henry/obamas-opponents-do-a-lot-of-crying-wolf-687665/#ixzz2TkoAyF4u)

Ezra Klein has a nice summary of these supposed scandals in the Washington Post:

On Tuesday, it looked like we had three possible political scandals brewing. Two days later, with much more evidence available, it doesn’t look like any of them will pan out. There’ll be more hearings, and more bad press for the Obama administration, and more demands for documents. But — and this is a key qualification — absent more revelations, the scandals that could reach high don’t seem to include any real wrongdoing, whereas the ones that include real wrongdoing don’t reach high enough.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/16/the-scandals-are-falling-apart/ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/16/the-scandals-are-falling-apart/)

Finally, there's a piece about the President's approval rating. Short version: It hasn't changed. It seems to me that people are either tuning out the Republican's message or they're simply not engaged.

The poll, from CNN and ORC International, found that 53% of Americans approve of the job Obama is doing, while 45% disapproved. This number remains virtually unchanged from polls taken before the scandals hit.

The poll was taken on May 17th and 18th, and has a 3% margin of error.

A CNN poll taken in early April showed Obama's approval rating to be 51%. According to a Gallup poll taken in early May, the president's approval rating was 50%.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/19/obama-approval-rating_n_3302580.html?utm_hp_ref=politics (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/19/obama-approval-rating_n_3302580.html?utm_hp_ref=politics)

And of course, now there's this from the Heritage Foundation to Speaker Bronzer.

http://heritageaction.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/20130516-Heritage-Action-re-oversight.pdf

Here's the article about it (http://thegrio.com/2013/05/16/heritage-to-republicans-dont-legislate-just-scandalize-obama/).  I must say, it's not surprising given that we've known this was their strategy all along.  They could care less about governing.  They're still mad they lost the election, and instead of trying to correct the things they did or didn't do to give them a better chance (less alienation of women and minorities), they decide to focus on scandals.  Most of which are, quoting a famous poster on here, 'straw men'.

How much less?

Enough to squander a bipartisan opportunity to reform the runaway federal tax bureaucracy.

White House struggles to prove that President Obama is not a vampire.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and-video/photo/2013/05/president-barack-obama-reflected-mirror

So where was your non-faux outrage during Baby Bush's time??  (see above.)

Keep it classy, Julian:

Now now. Let's not let the facts get in front of the dismissive hyperbole. Obviously the tea party deserves the extra scrutiny, because the pee party, Sierra Club, NARAL, and the leftist/progressive organizations were given heightened scrutiny by the IRS as well. ::)

 I am loving the "but...but...but.. George Bush", "but...but...but...what about governing", "but...but...but...(fill in the blank with anything other than the issue)".

Me too. Hypocrisy is the issue.

You mean politicians are hypocrites?  You don't say!

Politicians? Without a doubt.

Its the general populace of Okies that doesn't seem to care when a conservative Republican is serving as president during such activities, but howl when a Democrat is in office.

Frankly, I'd be surprised if the IRS didn't get interested when such large numbers of tax exempt organizations suddenly started coming in.

Continuing on the hilarious strawman thread the left has decided to go with on the "13 embassy attacks under Bush and only two under Obama":  There were, what, two documented instances of the IRS targeting a couple of left-leaning (I didn't realize NAACP was either liberal or conservative, glad that veil has finally been lifted!) groups under the Bush admin?  Seems there's been systemic targeting of anything which looked to be a conservative political front group while more liberal ones were given (c) (4) certification pretty easily.  I've also read accounts that prominent GOP bundlers for Romney like Sheldon Adelson have gotten the deep scope from the IRS recently.

Okay, rabid foaming rant mode off- as to your last sentence this may well have been a result of Citizens United, a SCROTUS decision that I think was a very bad one.  I'm sure there was a huge influx of applications as there are around any election year.  But, if reports are correct that there were more liberal leaning groups getting what amounted to a free pass while more conservative ones were made to sit and spin, that's a problem.

The power to tax is the power to destroy. – John Marshall

But it is also the power to bless.  Give government the power to play favorites, and all kinds of bad things happen.

Perhaps this is a good time to discuss changes in the tax code?

The idea behind taxation is to fund the mechanisms of government.  Somewhere along the line we got lost, and began to use taxation as a punitive measure against people and organizations.  Taxation migrated from a legislative function of government to a convoluted act of law enforcement and control.  In doing so it became a sword for the politicians right hand and a purse for his left. 

We spend a lot of time talking about political corruption, and crooked politicians, but if you look at the mechanics of that corruption, at it's very heart is our tax system.  Take away a politicians ability to distribute funds through taxation and you strip away most of the corruption. 

Flat, fair, or usage based systems devoid of special privilege, exemption, or advantage, offer the most logical solution.  Unfortunately, they are also a pipe-dream because too many in our society have learned to come to the top of the water and feed from the hand of government, rather than feed themselves or each other.
(http://www.pondexperts.ca/Images/hand_feeding_koi_m.jpg)

Like Eisenhower said...

They don't look back that far, even for their own kind.

I'm really tired of being constrained by some libertarian's idea of a united liberal front. I seldom visit political websites and even then just for viewpoints or humor. I'm sure conservatives and libertarians tire of being lumped in with the idiot remarks made by Rand Paul and that Texas governor. Can't we just stop with that nonsense?

Than perhaps you should continue to sleep.

. . . or refuse to accept the definition by posing an independent viewpoint.

People who create things nowadays can expect to be prosecuted by highly moralistic people who are incapable of creating anything. There is no way to measure the chilling effect on innovation that results from the threats of taxation, regulation and prosecution against anything that succeeds. We'll never know how many ideas our government has aborted in the name protecting us. – Joseph Sobran

Liberals believe government should take people's earnings to give to poor people. Conservatives disagree. They think government should confiscate people's earnings and give them to farmers and insolvent banks. The compelling issue to both conservatives and liberals is not whether it is legitimate for government to confiscate one's property to give to another, the debate is over the disposition of the pillage. – Walter Williams

Sorry, I won't live by your rules, your view of the world or follow your directions based on such.

There is no uniform liberal anymore than there is a uniform Black person, Southern person, conservative, etc. That is, sadly, your construct.

That's odd.  You seem to be offering non sequitur logic.  Modern Liberalism, Classical Liberalism, Conservatism, Libertarianism, and Progressivism are defined political philosophies based on differing world views.  Race and regionally are defined either by genetic makeup or geographical location, and have no connection to this line of reasoning.

If you are a Liberal, that means you recognize and align yourself with most of an established set philosophical beliefs that incorporate the definition of being Liberal, just as my classification of myself as a Libertarian requires that I recognize and align myself with the majority of libertarian philosophical beliefs.

To escape definition (and the dilema you seem to have with it) your best option would be not to align yourself with the political philosophy and it's corresponding nomenclature.   

That is too effing stupid to seriously respond to

Anywhoo. . .

Now it comes to this.
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-top-irs-official-fifth-amendment-20130521,0,6645565.story
WASHINGTON – A top IRS official in the division that reviews nonprofit groups will invoke the Fifth Amendment and refuse to answer questions before a House committee investigating the agency’s improper screening of conservative nonprofit groups.

Lois Lerner, the head of the exempt organizations division of the IRS, won’t answer questions about what she knew about the improper screening – or why she didn’t reveal it to Congress, according to a letter from her defense lawyer, William W. Taylor 3rd.

Lerner was scheduled to appear before the House Oversight committee Wednesday.

Lerner takes the 5th, threats of a special prosecutor come not from Republicans, but from Democrats!
http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/22/remaining-silent-on-the-i-r-s/
(http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2013/05/22/opinion/5222013lerner/5222013lerner-blog480.jpg)

Rep. Stephen Lynch, Massachusetts Democrat warned:“We know where that will lead, it will lead to a special prosecutor. … There will be hell to pay if that’s the route that we choose to go down,” he said. He also accused the Obama administration of placing a “higher priority on deniability than addressing blatant wrongdoing.”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/22/rep-issa-accuses-irs-misleading-congress-and-ameri/#ixzz2U343Yqrp



To whom do lions cast their gentle looks? Not to the beast that would usurp their den. The smallest worm will turn being trodden on, And doves will peck in safeguard of their brood.- Bill Shakesphere

It seems that Mrs. Learner is even incompetent when attempting to take the 5th.  She may be called back up without 5th amendment protection because she chose to make a statement claiming witness to her innocence, instead of asserting her right not to bear witness against herself.  

For future reference, when you are going to assert your right not to bear witness on the grounds that your own testimony may serve to incriminate you, you should not, in the same breath, attest to your innocence.  By responding to Issa's questions with the statement: “I have not done anything wrong, I have not broken any laws. I have not violated any IRS rules or regulations, and I have not provided false information to this or any other committee.” Lerner may have effectively offered testimony on her behalf.

“When I asked her her questions from the very beginning, I did so so she could assert her rights prior to any statement,” Issa told POLITICO. “She chose not to do so — so she waived.”

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/darrell-issa-irs-lois-lerner-91755.html?hp=t3_3

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BK4Et8dCUAEHkb0.jpg:large)

Trey Gowdy responds to the assertion:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=10EWW7hPWhQ[/youtube]

So let's see if I understand this right. A couple of Republican congressmen, one with a background in electronics manufacturing and another as a federal prosecutor, believe that a witness waived her fifth amendment rights without ever specifically saying so, and now they can somehow compel testimony from her.  I guess if she refuses they can charge her with contempt of congress, but they'd have to charge the rest of us too.  Maybe we'll get to see the first-ever waterboarding in a congressional witch hunt investigation.  What a proud day for America!

I would think a federal prosecutor's opinion on that subject might have some credibility even if he is a Republican.  Might even be credible if he was a Democrat.

I'd give it a qualified maybe. I'd expect that the Republicans would back him and the Democrats would oppose, but who decides which is correct?  Does it go to a federal court?

I don't know.  I'm just an engineer.

I knew there was a good reason not to like you! Number One Daughter seems to attract engineers, something that's a puzzlement to her. I told her to look for young men who are drug dealers, pimps, or pornographers because they enjoy better social standing.

If you've seen that TV ad with the old guy who blurts out whatever is on his mind, I'm rapidly turning into that guy. Daughter rolls her eyes a lot.   

Surely (no, not Shirley) you can find a better reason to not like me than because I am an engineer.   :D

Gowdy is arguing this witness cannot essentially fart and leave the room. This is a frequently contested issue in courts, and as a federal prosecutor would have an exceptional understanding of the line.

I like how your post went from legitimate inquiry into waiver (or at least limited) 5th Amend to, quite logically, waterboarding.

Sure, it's hyperbole, but our esteemed congressmen apparently think they can compel testimony from a witness.  What better way than waterboarding?

It seems that both Republicans and Democrats are on the same page with Issa.  None of them want to see a special prosecutor appointed, though that looks inevitable at this point since the IRS missed their deadline in complying with congress on the subpoena of their email communications with the White House.

Not sure what the delay tactics are for at this point.  The election is over. 

Those preferred professions make a lot more money, too!!

The big question - and possibly life changing for the worse - is SHE attracted to them as well as they to her...?

An admission that waterboarding is effective. welcome to the club.

Waterboarding is cruel, and does not provide any reliable intelligence.  This administration employs superior tactics.
(http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/dangerroom/2009/06/afghan-funeral.jpg)

You're right, of course. Waterboarding is effective in eliciting the answers that will make the waterboarding stop, but that doesn't mean the answers are truthful.  People being tortured will say anything to make it stop. 

Now you've done it, Ed.  Logic.

When will this madness stop?!

Madness?  What madness?  I'm thoroughly sane, not mad.  The voices say so.

Waterboarding is nothing compared to other tortures.  Have none of you ever watched Brave Heart?  The Medieval English had torture down to an artform. How would you like to be hacked to death with knives and then beheaded as that soldier in the UK?

George Orwell's protagonist, Winston Smith, is faced with denouncing his lover or having a cage filled with rats fitted over his head.  Our cruelty is only exceeded by our imagination, it seems.

I read 1984 l-o-n-g before 1984.  I don't remember details from it.  I do remember big brother and the concepts though.

I had a dystopian novel habit for a while as a teenager. I read 1984 and Fahrenheit 451. But there are others as well, like October the First is Too Late, Lucifer's Hammer, and more.  Many were based in the nuclear paranoia of the cold war.

1984 was required High School reading.  I didn't read the others you mentioned.  I think Fahrenheit 451 was made into a movie I didn't see.

I'll take waterboarding over a drone strike any ol' day.

I'll take both over a shotgun blast to the face any day also.

 ;D

Well shotgun blast ought to be over pretty quick at 5 ft. anyhow.

Special Prosecutor here we come.  Looks like the head of this snake is actually the head of the snake.  The IRS chairman actually spent more time consulting with the president than anyone on his cabinate!

(http://dailycaller.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Obama-admin-visitors.jpg)

Shulman’s extensive access to the White House first came to light during his testimony last week before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Shulman gave assorted answers when asked why he had visited the White House 118 times during the period that the IRS was targeting tea party and conservative nonprofits for extra scrutiny and delays on their tax-exempt applications.

By contrast, Shulman’s predecessor Mark Everson only visited the White House once during four years of service in the George W. Bush administration and compared the IRS’s remoteness from the president to “Siberia.” But the scope of Shulman’s White House visits — which strongly suggests coordination by White House officials in the campaign against the president’s political opponents — is even more striking in comparison to the publicly recorded access of cabinet members.



Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/29/irss-shulman-had-more-public-white-house-visits-than-any-cabinet-member/#ixzz2UmJqMp15


Democrats now want one too!

Three-quarters of U.S. voters want a special prosecutor to investigate the Internal Revenue Service’s targeting of Tea Party groups, according to a poll that showed a drop in President Barack Obama’s approval and trust ratings.
In the survey released today by Hamden, Connecticut-based Quinnipiac University, registered voters favored a special prosecutor by 76 percent to 17 percent. Those backing such a move included 63 percent of Democrats. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-30/special-irs-prosecutor-favored-as-obama-support-drops.html

This sort of tyranny will be brushed off as a waste of taxpayer resources and a witch hunt.  I don't care which party was targeted, it's dangerous when the IRS starts inserting itself into politics or allowing itself to be used as a political tool.

I 100% agree. But I think it is naive to think that this is the first time it ever happened. I posted when it happened under Bush. I assume it has happened under every President.

The people who did this were career civil servants. They have an odd sense of power and probably thought they were helping the party and people in power. I don't believe this was ordered by the President or even the top people in the IRS. It is just one of the faults of the system of federal bureacracy.

I'm quite certain Presidents have used the IRS as a vindictive tool through many administrations.

What is troubling though is the cozy relationship Shulman has had with the White House compared to previous IRS execs.  It's also troubling that the IRS employee union (was anyone aware they were unionized?) gave 94% of their contributions in the 2012 election to Democrats, Democrat PACs, and various other fund-raising tools.

Why are government employee unions participating in electioneering in the first place?  These unions are fully funded with money which comes from tax-payer-provided jobs.  How do you try and overhaul an agency like the IRS or the tax code when the IRS essentially has the power, via it's employee union, under the guise of protecting IRS jobs, to buy off tenured politicians who can help keep more over-sight out of a bureaucracy. We see this on a local level with the FOP and Firefighters Union when they endorse candidates for mayor and council. That's damn frightening to me.  Or maybe I'm too much of a simpleton to really understand what is going on here.

Shulman spent more time with President Obama than Monica did "under" President Clinton.

I thought she served in front of him, not under.

She was a fan of the beret, and Clinton was a fan of the Cincinnati Beret.

(http://i651.photobucket.com/albums/uu231/firewaller/lewinsky-beret.jpg)

My first time to read it was about 1966.

You really don't need to re-read it, though - we have been living it for the last 30 years or so with the Republicontin redefinition of terms that we have enjoyed lo, these many years!  Just listen to Hannity, Limbaugh, Rove and their ilk.... and I do mean ilk!!

A Boy and His Dog.  Available on DVD!!

Slaughterhouse 5.   Billy Pilgrim!!  I always seem to confuse him with Billy Idol for some reason...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/wp/2013/06/18/rep-elijah-cummings-releases-a-full-irs-interview-transcript/

Screw sequestration!!! We want our bonuses!!!


http://www.tulsaworld.com/article.aspx/Senator_IRS_to_pay_70_million_in_employee_bonuses/20130619_335_0_WASHIN656656?subj=298

Is it just me, or does the IRS seem to think it now has more power than the president or congress?  Ever since handing the healthcare of the nation over to them, they seem to have acquired quite an inflated image of themselves.

It's just you.  They were already inflated.

What Red Arrow said....

Yeah, they already thought that way about themselves.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/3/irs-targeted-dr-ben-carson-after-prayer-breakfast-/

Obama turned IRS weapon on Dr. Ben Carson after his remarks at the prayer breakfast.
(http://media.washtimes.com/media/image/2013/02/27/20130227-221617-pic-868204804_s160x221.jpg?12686177fff4998cfa77ca9d3bac554670f9a867)

IRS found nothing except that Dr. Carson is a dirty racist Tea Bagger, and bitter clinger.

I heard about this.  Obama was on hold with the help desk forever.

+1
Now that was funny.

DOJ now says 1.1 million document database contained legally protected taxpayer information, returns it to IRS

House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa, R-Calif., and Subcommittee Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, today sent a letter to Internal Revenue Service Commissioner John Koskinen demanding more information after new revelations that the IRS transmitted 21 disks, constituting a 1.1 million page database of information from 501(c)(4) tax exempt organizations, to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)in October 2010.  After the Justice Department turned over the database to the Oversight Committee this month in response to a subpoena, the Justice Department says it was informed by IRS officials that it contains legally protected taxpayer information that should not have ever been sent to the FBI and it now plans to return the full database to the IRS.

“We were extremely troubled by this new information, and by the fact that the IRS has withheld it from the Committee for over a year,” write Issa and Jordan to IRS Commissioner Koskinen.  “We were astonished to learn days ago from the Justice Department that these 21 disks contained confidential taxpayer information protected by federal law.  We ask that you immediately produce all material explaining how these disks were prepared and transmitted to the FBI.”

n an e-mail dated October 5, 2010, former IRS Director of Exempt Organizations Lois Lerner asked Richard Pilger, an official with the Justice Department’s Election Crimes Branch, about his formatting preference for “the disks we spoke about.” Pilger forwarded Lerner’s e-mail to an FBI agent, writing, “This is incoming data re 501c4 issues.  Does FBI have a format preference?” He then responded to Lerner, “Thanks Lois – FBI says Raw format is best because they can put it into their systems like excel.”

http://oversight.house.gov/release/irss-lois-lerner-database-tax-exempt-organizations-sent-fbi-weeks-2010-midterm-elections/

What’s the big deal?  We all know the DOJ is decidedly non-partisan.   :o

They just needed to wait until no one was looking.

. . .and no one is looking.

Lets all put on our shocked faces.

(http://triadmomsonmain.com/images/Rachel%20Originals/Home-Alone.jpg)

the Internal Revenue Service informing the Committee that they have lost Lois Lerner emails from a period of January 2009 – April 2011.  Due to a supposed computer crash, the agency only has Lerner emails to and from other IRS employees during this time frame.  The IRS claims it cannot produce emails written only to or from Lerner and outside agencies or groups, such as the White House, Treasury, Department of Justice, FEC, or Democrat offices.
http://waysandmeans.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=384506

(http://hotmeme.net/media/i/0/d/87U-mrw-my-friend-said-he-could-post-about-anything-on-reddit-and-get-gold.jpg)

Check with NSA, I bet they have them.  Or Edward Snowden.

“Lois’ dog ate her homework."

The IRS must have some very sophisticated equipment. I have set up quite a few mail servers and clients of all flavors, and have never come across one that will selectively lose emails to/from some groups but not emails to/from others.

Funny that the IRS requires businesses to maintain a level of compliance, but seem to lack even the most basic archiving themselves.

This is probably the worst excuse ever, because only an idiot would believe it.

I’m done being shocked at the chicanery they employ with total impunity.  If this had happened under Bush or if McSame would have been elected, well, use your imagination. 

In a bizarre turn of events CNN starts reporting the news.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9nQSK60jOo#t=117[/youtube]

It seems we have a bit more than Nixon's missing 18 minutes here.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/lawmakers-irs-lost-emails-tea-party-probe-24175196
Must have had a really bad bunch of hard drives in that office, because now 6 additional employees in the same IRS office had their hard drives crash and lost copies of the emails from exactly the same time period.  One of these was Nikole Flax who was the chief of staff for Lerner's boss, and for some unexplained reason spent a huge amount of time (very bizarre indeed for an IRS staffer) visiting the White House during that exact period.  Probably had to call to get an appointment since the email was on the fritz.

(http://pbs.twimg.com/media/BqWPoHXCYAA9pdK.png:large)

This has gone from "the dog ate my homework" to "I was abducted by space aliens."

Ahhh, yes...we have moved to "Bush Reality Zone"....it all makes sense now!

A great new bill to be introduced, "The Dog Ate My Tax Receipts Act":

Under Stockman’s bill, “The Dog Ate My Tax Receipts Act,” taxpayers who do not provide documents requested by the IRS can claim one of the following reasons:

1.         The dog ate my tax receipts
2.         Convenient, unexplained, miscellaneous computer malfunction
3.         Traded documents for five terrorists
4.         Burned for warmth while lost in the Yukon
5.         Left on table in Hillary’s Book Room
6.         Received water damage in the trunk of Ted Kennedy’s car
7.         Forgot in gun case sold to Mexican drug lords
8.         Forced to recycle by municipal Green Czar
9.         Was short on toilet paper while camping
10.       At this point, what difference does it make?

Stockman’s bill comes a week after the IRS refused to turn over to House investigators emails from former Exempt Organizations Divison director Lois Lerner that would implicate agency personnel in illegal targeting of citizens critical of President Barack Obama.

Today the IRS director was unexpectedly asked if Lois Lerner had a BlackBerry or smartphone, and in a bit of panic he responded "I don't know."  Of course we know from her signature lines on many of her emails that say "Sent from my BlackBerry wireless handheld" in the signature line. 

How much do you want to bet that her BlackBerry has been stolen, lost, dropped from a tall building, or misplaced in a volcano?

It spontaneously combusted, like Dooeys.

Yes, just like Sharon Jean.......

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNSAioPH-kw&feature=kp (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNSAioPH-kw&feature=kp)

Not insulting, or insinuating, but most of us here know that in an enterprise situation emails are created, routed and stored through an email server, not through the desk top PC. So if your desk top crashes, your emails are stored else where. The email server is backed up and stored on premise, as well as stored in an off site storage facility in case of a disaster recovery scenario. While it's possible that emails are dumped depending upon the retention requirements, I highly doubt that the IRS has a short retention policy for emails when so many other items, returns/filings/business status/profit-nonprofit filings/business tax ID numbers/corporate tax ID numbers, have been stored and filed for decades.

The only way to defeat Stockman's "The Dog Ate My Tax Receipts Act"?

(http://www.valdezlink.com/media/irs_.jpg)

Just got a letter like that from the Oklahoma State Tax Commission. It said, "Our records indicate you owe us $31.16 in interest. Send it by July 10 or we will send the debt to a collection agency."

Nice. What records? Might you share with me? Didn't explain why I owe them anything since I filed on time and paid a fairly hurtful (for me) amount to them. Just pay or die.

I think we may be suffering from institutional ignorance and poor communication skills stemming from our state's reliance on cronyism and graduates of our underfunded education system. Or maybe they targeted the dozen or so Democrats left here.

Please send me your home address.

I need to send you a letter like that from the TulsaNow Debt Commission. "Our records indicate you owe us $20.00 in past due charges for posting on public forums. Send it by July 10 or we will send the debt to a collection agency."

I figure $20 will buy us five or six bottles of wine to be consumed at our next lunch meeting.

Let me think about that......

They are either really small bottles or really cheap wine.
 
 :D

The wine is made behind someone's garage in Skiatook. There's hardly any brake fluid in it.

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk

But plenty of anti-freeze no doubt, Ed.

Sorry, guys. The OTC took all my savings and I post dated the check to boot. "A man of means, by no means...."

OTC also operates under a relative veil of secrecy.  Just pray they never estimate your taxes for you.  ::)

This is brutal.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Avfm2urqdHM[/youtube]

Where was Gowdy when we were "discussing" going into Iraq?


Oh, yeah...the wrong side of history!

I think he was still in the federal prosecutor's office in South Carolina, working for a democrat appointed by Clenis. He didn't get to Congress until 2010. Now, care to walk back your indictment?

No.  I knew he was a late comer, but he could also have expressed an opinion there.  And I would bet a really BIG pile of change that he was all about going there then, too.  And he could join in today, too, where he could possibly do some good!  But wait....he's all about the Benghazi thing isn't he?  Must be a crushing disappointment that the administration has actually made a capture after a relatively short time....compared to how long Bush took to catch Bin Laden...  ooopppsss....those pesky facts again - Bush didn't actually do that, did he!!

He has a history and that is pertinent.  He is casting aspersions on the IRS guy (who I would say may well deserve them since he IS  IRS) and acting all pious, so what is his background?  How pious has he been all his life?

See how Oklahoma embraces a governor who hangs out with Hugh Hefner...!!  Or maybe P J O'Rourke...?  Yep, people make major sea-changes all the time....

How can this man lose emails? He helped protect us from Y2k?

(http://media.mcclatchydc.com/smedia/2014/06/19/17/41/DZ20b.AuSt.91.jpeg)

http://fcw.com/articles/2012/06/15/feat-people-john-koskinen-y2k.aspx (http://fcw.com/articles/2012/06/15/feat-people-john-koskinen-y2k.aspx)

Nothing suspicious about the Email discovered today. http://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Lerner-email-use-2.pdf

Question;  can emails be saved?

Answer;  Yes, so treat all conversations as public.


Yeah...suspicious....
More inane than suspicious.

Well this is one way to deal with a rogue federal agency. Cut the crap out of its funding.

http://buzzpo.com/revenge-house-cuts-1-1-billion-irs-budget/

Does this mean no presents under the tree on April 15th?

Actually this kinda sucks.  I have a system I can sell them that will archive every employee's email, instant message, and even their personal POP communications (if transmitted on the government network).  I can get them into such a system for under a million bucks, and it would only take a couple of weeks to implement.

Far better option than ankle bracelets, but then again, it could lead to ankle brackets.

This is Trey Gowdy tearing the IRS guy a new one.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrejFz0BslU[/youtube]

Gowdy is also heading up the Benghazi investigation. Can you imagine his reaction to this?  

(http://www.hyscience.com/what-difference-does-it-make-meme-generator-what-difference-does-it-make-ee8d52_zps7f4cd1051.jpg)

And the inevitable Trey Gowdy hair...

http://www.buzzfeed.com/bennyjohnson/this-man-has-the-most-confusing-hair-in-congress

https://www.google.com/search?q=trey+gowdy%27s+hair&espv=2&es_sm=122&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=CZDQU6KZFce6oQST0oG4Dw&ved=0CAgQ_AUoAQ&biw=1366&bih=643

You will never get in the door with that.  Raise it to $73 million and they might talk to you.  You could then 'cut' it to $70 million even to give them a break.  Good feelings all around, and the customer feels they have gotten their money's worth!  Oh, yeah...take an extra 13 months to complete it!

. . .and in today's document dump.
The IRS added five more employees to its computer crash list Friday, the Associated Press reported. The new computer crash victims are linked to congressional investigations into the IRS scandal and include two more Cincinnati-based tax exempt agents who worked under Lois Lerner.

The announcement came just hours after new emails revealed that computer-crash victims Lerner and Nikole Flax were part of a “secret research project” that led the IRS to improperly demand donor information from nonprofit groups.

The IRS initially said that it lost emails from seven IRS employees including Lerner, but then amended its estimate to state that nearly 20 employees suffered email-deleting computer crashes. Lerner’s computer hard drive was destroyed by the agency and her Blackberry was erased.

http://dailycaller.com/2014/09/05/irs-five-more-employees-lost-emails-in-computer-crashes/

Windows 8 really sucks!

http://www.scribd.com/doc/239206082/Issa-Letter-to-Eric-Holder-About-Brian-Fallon

A senior communications aide to Attorney General Eric Holder seemingly called House oversight committee chairman Darrell Issa's staff by accident and asked for their help spinning new revelations about the IRS scandal, Issa said in a September 8 letter to Holder.

The aide, Brian Fallon, is a former senior aide to Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and a well-known personality on Capitol Hill. The letter describes Fallon as “audibly shaken” when he realizes his request to leak documents to help get ahead of news stories about them was mistakenly made to the very office he was seeking to undermine. Issa believes the call was intended to be made to Democratic Rep. Elijah Cumming's staff, the ranking member on the oversight panel, the letter said.

According to the letter, Fallon – who is not named in the letter but confirmed he made the call – asked if the aides could release the IRS scandal documents to “selected reporters” to give Fallon an “opportunity to comment publicly on it.”

Fallon explained to Issa aides that the Justice Department's Office of Legislative Affairs had not permitted him to release the documents to the public and he wanted to get ahead of the story “before the Majority” – meaning Issa – could share it, according to the letter.

Issa aides – who had placed the call on speakerphone – were “caught off guard by the unusual nature of the call and the odd request” and asked Fallon to “e-mail the material for evaluation.”

“At this point,” Fallon “abruptly placed the call on hold for approximately three minutes.” When Fallon returned to the call, “he was audibly shaken. He immediately stated that there was a 'change in plans' and that there would be no effort” by DOJ to release the material early.

. . .and that's how you go from a job at the corrupt DOJ to serving fries at Wendy's.

^^^^Pretty funny right there.

I believe Brian Fallon suffered what we in the medical field used to call a CODE BROWN!

Breitbart picked up the story.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/09/09/Letter-Holder-Aide-Accidentally-Calls-Issa-For-Help-Spinning-IRS-Scandal
I fully expect to see this covered on MSNBC this evening.

(http://www.survivingmommy.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/CODEBROWN-300x225.jpg)