Quote:

---

What liberal groups were rubber-stamped? Names, please.

---

The Barack H Obama Foundation comes immediately to mind.

Quote:

---

If the IRS had gone after liberal organizations under Bush (or Obama) FOR A GOOD REASON, I would support such actions.

In this case, the IRS went after organizations who were possibly NOT IN COMPLIANCE with the law granting tax-exemption.

---

Nice spin... but no... they targeted them because of their name. Even the Emperor's 'Wormtongue' Dan Pfeiffer said on all the morning talk shows today that the IRS actions were indefensible .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Nice spin ...but no ... they targeted them because of their name.

---

Somehow a title like "Tea Party Charities" scares me. It's definitely a lighting rod to check further into its mission and political connections.

To tomder55 (3) -- For some reason, I don't have the option of quoting a poster..?

That foundation is a 501(c)3 - not a 501(c)4 - and promotes NO political advocacy. If it was rubber-stamped (no evidence that it was) it should not have been.

Drew Ryun tried to get 'Media Trackers' nonprofit status for over a year .So he changed the name to 'Greenhouse Solutions' .His approval came within 3 weeks.

So yeah it was all in the name . Liberal sounding names got less scrutiny . It was definitely an issue of unequal application of the law. Other than the name there was no difference in his organization.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Liberal sounding names got less scrutiny .

---

No, non-political titles get less scrutiny, are not lightning rods in the triage system.

You are making this triage system up .
And y'all seem to be under a misconception that 501(c) 4's were the only groups under scrutiny . But that just isn't so .
August 2010
First BOLO [Be On the Lookout] listing issued with criteria listed as “…various local organizations in the Tea Party movement…applying for exemption under 501(c)(3) or 501(c) 4 .” was in August 2010 .
See pdf :
http://online.wsj.com/public/resourc...ppendixVII.pdf

The timeline continues :


July 2011
Criteria changed to “Organizations involved with political, lobbying, or advocacy for exemption under 501(c)(3) or 501(c)(4)” based on the concerns the Director, EO, raised in June 2011.

January 2012
Criteria changed to “Political action type organizations involved in limiting/expanding government, educating on the constitution and bill of rights, social economic reform/movement” based on Determinations Unit concerns that the July 2011 criteria was too generic.

May 2012
Criteria changed to “501(c)(3), 501(c)(4), 501(c)(5), and 501(c)(6) organizations with indicators of significant amounts of political campaign intervention (raising questions as to exempt purpose and/or excess private benefit).”

We have also learned that pro-life groups were also targeted . So let's stop the pretend that this was not politically motivated targeting .

Hello again, tom:

People did wrong. They should be fired. I don't know where the scandal is, though. I'm still waiting for you to tell me what the Benghazi scandal is. And, I don't think the AP thing is a scandal, either. You DON'T like whistle-blowers who put our brave servicemen in danger, do you?

excon

And... let's say that the only scrutiny applied to 501(c)4 groups . You would think with all this scrutiny that at least one of these Tea Party groups would've been denied their application . But you can't come up with one.out of the hundreds of applications All you have is that since their name sounded like organizations that did not fit the criteria ,that they should be subject to greater scrutiny than those benevolent liberal groups.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, tom:

People did wrong. They should be fired. I dunno where the scandal is, though. I'm still waiting for you to tell me what the Benghazi scandal is. And, I don't think the AP thing is a scandal, either. You DON'T like whistle-blowers who put our brave servicemen in danger, do you?

excon

---

Benghazi will be the lies under testimony. A screwed up foreign policy is not criminal per se unless there is some law I'm not aware of prohibiting the arming of jihadists .
So let me get this straight . Unless there is a clear case of criminal activity ,you don't think policy blunders should be investigated ?
If there is a criminal activity in Benghazi it's because the Obots tried to cover up the facts of the incident ;including under testimony to the various oversight committees... let alone their outright lies to the world ,and the American people.

Hello again, tom:

Quote:

---

that they should be subject to greater scrutiny than those benevolent liberal groups.

---

If given the power and the opportunity to DO stuff like that, some people WILL. They should be fired. If we CHANGE the law/regulation that allows them to do it, then we'll STOP it. To PUT IRS employees into the POSITION of making those decisions in the first place, is a mistake CONGRESS made..

Are you in favor of changing the law so this won't ever happen again??

Excon

Of course . You know my position on taxes and the power of the IRS. The size of the government makes this type of corruption in the regulatory and enforcement agencies inevitable .

If the population grows and changes shouldn't government grow and change to service the population? As we age and retire, shouldn't we keep up with the needs of an aging population? As the private sector sends good jobs overseas for cheap labor, shouldn't we be helping displaced workers get on their feet?

If political parties want a loophole, shouldn't we investigate them thoroughly? If you keep cutting the budget, and not hire more people then either services slow down, or the service stops.

Even the TParty can be corrupted, and those law abiding citizens that want guns can be too. If you had 20,000 cases to verify, how long would it take you? Or would you demand more help, or more money?

Be honest.

Been catching up some and I'm floored that anyone can defend or dismiss this. This isn't about SCOTUS, loopholes, names that scare you (which seems awfully paranoid) or any other side issue. This is about a jackbooted government agency violating our trust, our rights in targeting political enemies. Not only that but they avoided the power players that can afford to defend themselves, which would have exposed this conspiracy - they used the full force of the U.S. government to harass and intimidate the little guys for daring to be concerned about the direction the country was headed and covered it up until after the election.

This is as clearcut an example of betrayal by our government as it gets, it cannot be excused and shame on anyone that tries.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Been catching up some and I'm floored that anyone can defend or dismiss this. This isn't about SCOTUS, loopholes, names that scare you (which seems awfully paranoid) or any other side issue. This is about a jackbooted government agency violating our trust, our rights in targeting political enemies. Not only that but they avoided the power players that can afford to defend themselves, which would have exposed this conspiracy - they used the full force of the U.S. government to harass and intimidate the little guys for daring to be concerned about the direction the country was headed and covered it up until after the election.

This is as clearcut an example of betrayal by our government as it gets, it cannot be excused and shame on anyone that tries.

---

And the IRS has been doing it since 1959.

Was there a point to that comment?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Was there a point to that comment?

---

Yes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Been catching up some and I'm floored that anyone can defend or dismiss this. This isn't about SCOTUS, loopholes, names that scare you (which seems awfully paranoid) or any other side issue. This is about a jackbooted government agency violating our trust, our rights in targeting political enemies. Not only that but they avoided the power players that can afford to defend themselves, which would have exposed this conspiracy - they used the full force of the U.S. government to harass and intimidate the little guys for daring to be concerned about the direction the country was headed and covered it up until after the election.

This is as clearcut an example of betrayal by our government as it gets, it cannot be excused and shame on anyone that tries.

---

It is a clear cut example, but that's the whole idea of neo-corporatism.

Federalism is the best way to consolidate a power sharing arrangement. At the moment we have neo-nationalism teamed up with neo-corporatism. The only difference down the track will be that neo-conservatism will team up with neo-corporatism.Nothing will change except a shift in the power sharing arrangement.

I would disagree with Tom. Money does buy power and influence in the political process. The little guys were shut out of the political process as soon as big money backed their grassroots cause.

Yes we disagree on that issue. There are over a thousand independent Tea Party Groups in the country ,most of them unaffiliated with one of the self proclaimed national groups.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

Yes.

---

And what point would that be?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

And what point would that be?

---

That, over the years, BOTH political parties have been subjected to the misinterpretation of the tax law. The original wording was fair and clear.