Did you notice the accusation was orders from Washington, not the White House? Cummings is just flapping his gums. I'm with tom, release the documents and let the chips fall. You in?Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
|
Did you notice the accusation was orders from Washington, not the White House? Cummings is just flapping his gums. I'm with tom, release the documents and let the chips fall. You in?Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
One of the groups that waited two years for their exemption recorded a phone conversation with an IRS agent crossing the line from government servant to "speech and belief police."
Yeah, yeah, she's a crook for recording the call, right?Quote:
Alliance Defending Freedom, a pro-life legal group, released audio on Monday of a conversation between Ania Joseph, president of Pro-Life Revolution, and Sherry Wan, an Internal Revenue Service (IRS) agent.
The Texas-based pro-life group offers counseling to mothers who are considering abortion. The group also seeks to educate scared soon-to-be mothers on the possible long-term physical and psychological ramifications of abortion.
Wan lectured Joseph on the group’s mission and told the pro-life leader that she needs to “know [her] boundaries.”
“You cannot force your religion or force your beliefs on somebody else,” Wan told Joseph in a nearly 10-minute phone conversation.
“I just have a question, Sherry,” Joseph interjected. “Is handing a brochure to somebody forcing somebody to do something they don’t want to do?”
Wan explained her position.
“You convince them. But when you take a lot of action, [unintelligible] other people. For example, when you, you know, go to, you know, the abortion clinic, and you found them [unintelligible], we don’t want, you know, to come against them,” the agent said.
“You can’t take all kinds of confrontation activities and also put something on a website and ask people to take action against the abortion clinic. That’s not, that’s not really educational.”
Wan added:
You have the right to believe. You have the right to do, your religion told you what’s right. You have a right to, you know, outreach to other people.
But meanwhile, you have to know your boundaries. You have to know your limits. You have to respect other people’s beliefs. You have somebody else come to your door and know you don’t like them. When they come to you, how do you feel?
Joseph decided from there that the wiser move would be to seek legal counsel. So she did, enlisting the aid of ADF which now provides the group with legal advice.
“The IRS is a tax collector; it shouldn’t be allowed to be the speech and belief police,” said Senior Legal Counsel Erik Stanley. “The current scandal isn’t new but has merely exposed the abuse of power that characterizes this agency and threatens our fundamental freedoms.”
“The power to tax is the power to destroy,” added Stanley. “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. We cannot allow the IRS to ruthlessly dictate against legitimate non-profits simply because it does not approve of the organization’s mission. It must be held accountable.”
“The IRS has approved applications for tax exemption for pro-abortion groups such as Planned Parenthood and Life and Liberty for Women,” ADF said.
Hello again, Steve:
Come on, Steve. I hate the IRS too, and I hate defending them. But, it ain't their fault.
The problem, as both tal and I have pointed out, is the task we've given the IRS, to determine HOW MUCH of an applicant's activities are of a social welfare nature or of a political nature. I don't like the questions they're required to ask an organization such as the one you describe... But, the problem is the LAW, not the IRS.
excon
I kind of doubt the law directs them to ask the questions that have been reported. Naaah ;that was marching orders from either a boss in the IRS ;or more likey higher up the food chain.
If you believe the IRS is REQUIRED to ask applicants the content of their prayers and the names of FUTURE students you've gone off the deep end.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Hello again, Steve:
When you give a bureaucrat the power to ask ANYTHING about someone's political activity, these abuses are BOUND to happen.. The problem is NOT this one misguided bureaucrat.. It's the RULES that allow ANY of them to ask ANY questions about it at all.
Besides, in the final analysis, so what? I hate bureaucrats... You hate bureaucrats... To discover an IRS employee behaving badly is NOT news. The only reason you continue this thread is you're HOPING and PREYING that somebody can link Obama to it. But, they just CAN'T...
A thread about an abusive bureaucrat isn't worth too much more comment...
excon
Never thought I'd see the day when you'd blow off something as outrageous as this. Personally I don't care if it gets to Obama or not, I want it stopped - but I believe I said that already. If anything you've just admitted the problem, endlessly expanding government leads to such abuses. You're resigned to shrugging them off and allowing the people to be victims of their government, I'm not.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Let's face it you don't really know what a charity isQuote:
Originally Posted by excon
Or it was the agent opinion, and she has a right to it but not on company time right? Or does she have a right to express her convictions on company time? You can't assume it's a policy of the IRS. Because you hate the IRS and the winger was a victim. Yet the end of the transcript was this,
http://www.adfmedia.org/files/ProLif...nscriptIRS.pdf
So I guess we can never know the beginning of this conversation, who called who or the questions and conversation that lead to this published part of the event. Sorry wingers, you excerpt is incomplete, as always, and without context.Quote:
Agent (8:52-9:57) – Yeah. I apologize for this because it is a holiday and everything and I'm off and on another project, so I apologize for the delay, but I think we're talking about more time to discuss and think about your application and want to give you more time to think about this, too. So, I just want you to know that, you know, we understand your position, we know where you're coming from, and we want to respect your religion, and we think that you think your intentions are good, OK? You want to do something good for the society, your religion, and we understand that. But meanwhile, we want you to be aware that, you know, when you conduct religious activities, meanwhile you have to respect other people's beliefs, other people's religion. You cannot use any kind of, you know, confrontation way, or to, or against other groups or devalue other groups, other people's beliefs. OK?
Actually it does as the IRS is required to tell them what tax exemption they do qualify for. Its often the case that citizens or groups without lawyers do make mistakes on filing the proper paper work, or filing them improperly documented. A protest group is hardly an educational one and has no legal standing for tax exemptions. Thought you knew.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
There goes your theory about letting it be and havng the courts fight it out. I wasn't aware the IRS was the place to call for legal advice. Something I must note for future posts in the law board.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
I find it hard to believe that this agent doesn't know to look at facts and not feelings when doing their job. Paying taxes and tax law isn't about feelings. Its about the law as it applies to the tax codes. Its not up to the agent to deliver any kind of speech on religion. Quote the laws as they know them and let it go. Measure compliance and take actions if those laws are not met. But if the critria matches that wich allows them to be a non-profit then you don't preach to them and stand in the way. Simply saying Im sorry doesn't cut it.
Hello again, dad:
It's true. This agent should be fired. But, I'm waiting for you to tell me that Obama ORDERED him to do it...Quote:
Simply saying Im sorry doesn't cut it.
Otherwise, I'm getting bored here... What? You think I'm going to DEFEND the IRS?
Excon
For one the group this lady seeks exemption for should have consulted a lawyer first to properly fill out her applications for exemption. She acknowledged she had one, and the reason for the call was not made clear. Not defending the IRS, but law and procedure shouldn't be a matter of how you feel about and should be equal under that law.
No I don't think your defending the IRS. We are discussing a situation here. As with the phone call that was recorded. Furthermore I don't believe Obama ordered it. I do believe it was within the spirit of the administration to cause an unequal application of the law but as far as direct orders. Nope didn't happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
What I feel is the debate is the unweilding power that the government has and how bloated it has become in recent times. Im not calling for that persons firing but maybe re-education of the job at hand. Just like the debates going on over the florist in Washington State we have boundries that come with living in the United States. Right now with such mistrust of the government those boundries are becoming more and more important. We (the public at large) need assurances that this really isn't getting out of hand. Isn't that or shouldn't that be a goal for everyone especially if they vote?
Then here are some of the "rules that apply according to the IRS.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
CHARITABLE
Charitable organizations conduct activities that promote:
- relief of the poor, the distressed, or the underprivileged
- advancement of religion
- advancement of education or science
- erection or maintenance of public buildings, monuments, or works
- lessening the burdens of government
- lessening neighborhood tensions
- eliminating prejudice and discrimination
- defending human and civil rights secured by law
- combating community deterioration and juvenile delinquency
So why would an agent keep talking about religion when its clear that it is part of the list. And those things I have highlighted are ones that could apply to the organization in question. Seems most of the list is covered.
Ref:
http://www.irs.gov/file_source/pub/irs-pdf/p4220.pdf
Hello again, dad:
You are describing the exact reason why I believe the abuses at Abu Grahib happened. The underlings BELIEVED they had permission to act the way they did.Quote:
Furthermore I don't believe Obama ordered it. I do believe it was within the spirit of the administration to cause an unequal application of the law but as far as direct orders. Nope didn't happen.
I'm willing to believe, that you believe, that Obama is SOOOOO partisan, that underlings at the IRS believed they had permission to act the way they did. I don't carry water for him, and he's NEVER been my "anointed one", but I just don't see it.
Excon
Here is what I see. There are many out there that voted for him because they wanted to see a "black" president. They didn't look at him as a person. But they elevated him to another level. In being the first "black" president the minions have decided that he can not fail. He is a man and he will have failures like all of us. But he has proven himself adept at speaking to the public at large. And there are many believers that preach his faith. I have no doubt he wishs to be a good president. But anytime he is challenged directly on issues he is offended and the media calls it racist. That is how he is covered by his minions. He can do no wrong. I see him as a President. I do not care what color his skin is but the policy that he chooses to back. I have never in my lifetime thought I would see it that they openly pass bills without reading what's in it or review of the content. Everything about this President has become a lie since he first took office. He promised transparency - nope didn't happen. He promised to remove special interests - nope didn't happen. He promised promised promised and has so far failed to deliver. The only one happy with this presidency is Jimmy Carter because I believe history will show that Obama failed as a president.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Hello again, dad:
I don't see too much different than that.. Except I'd add that there was a contingent in the senate who were committed to blocking EVERYTHING Obama did, and proceeded to DO so. Where Obama failed, in my view, was his inability to break that deadlock.
In terms of reading or writing bills, here's some news. MOST bills are written by LOBBYISTS, and I PROMISE you, they're not read by the congressman...
excon
Again, we don't have space to post everything but I linked the source and quoted the whole article so don't give me that nonsense.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
It's obvious the agent called, and no the agent does not have a right to force their opinion on the applicant - they are supposed to be NEUTRAL - which is the whole issue here, Tal.
No doubt that in politics today there has never been more polarization then what we are seeing in these times we live in. That is why I keep trying to advocate to throw the bums out. Any one of them that has been there for more then 2 terms needs to go so they can live under the laws they have created. We need fresh ideas to move this country back into a position that is once was. That of greatness. I believe there is balance and it can be found in the system but not in this system we have today with such great entrenchment.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
The link I provide was from your article and the transcript pointed out that she needed advice from her lawyer, and get back to the IRS with more information.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
As the agent points out there is a difference in the tax law between education, and social activism that includes protesting. Protest organizers are not eligible for tax exemptions, and often a permit has to be obtained for a fee to even hold one.
The lawyer used this as an event to make this winger female a victim and she was in fact ignorant of the law. She did good getting a lawyer, but that victim stuff was a bit overboard and had no basis in facts.
Well duh, after that call who wouldn't need counsel? You're also ignoring the fact I stated at the beginning, it took her TWO YEARS while liberal groups weren't enduring any such delays. Is the government supposed to be neutral or not, Tal?Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
I kind of agree with you, but a better informed society as a whole would certainly help to perfect a better union and we could all thrive and survive, and achieve a balance between our idealogical differences.Quote:
Originally Posted by cdad
As to how ridiculous this is, the National Organization for Marriage, which had its donors' names leaked by the IRS to its enemy putting those donors at risk, asked the IRS for an investigation. Their response as interpreted by Ace of Spades:
You just can't make this stuff up.Quote:
NOM: I want to know who broke the law protecting confidentiality of taxpayer information.
IRS: We can’t tell you that.
NOM: Why not?
IRS: The law protecting the confidentiality of taxpayer information protects the confidentiality of those who break the law of protecting the confidentiality of taxpayer information.
That’s the joke version. It also happens to be the actual account of the IRS’ position.
Yes you can - what you quoted is indeed made up.Quote:
You just can't make this stuff up
OK genius, what part of "Their response as interpreted by Ace of Spades" do you not understand, and how exactly does it differ in meaning from reality? From the link provided:Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Compare to the "made up version": The law protecting the confidentiality of taxpayer information protects the confidentiality of those who break the law of protecting the confidentiality of taxpayer information.Quote:
For the next 14 months they heard nothing about an investigation. By August 2012, the NOM was filing Freedom of Information Act requests trying to find out if there was one. The IRS stonewalled. Their "latest nonresponse response," said Mr. Eastman, claimed that the law prohibiting the disclosure of confidential tax returns also prevents disclosure of information about who disclosed them. Mr. Eastman called this "Orwellian."
Do you need someone to help you recognize humor, satire, sarcasm, etc. or more likely, to get over your obsession with me? Just trying to help dude, but you seem bent on forcing me to make you look stupid. I'm glad to oblige, though.
Who the hell is "ace of spades'?Quote:
as interpreted by Ace of Spades"
You have to ask?
A notorious blogger.
Let me google that for you
Lol!!
Hahahhaa... a notorious blogger... yes, there aren't many bloggers out there.
You just can't make this stuff up.
Nice try but Ace is no slouch.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Hint, saying ha ha ha doesn't make anyone take you seriously. You never learn.Quote:
Ace of Spades HQ, Ace of Spades, or AoS is a conservative and humor-driven U.S.-based Political Blog covering current events, legal issues, military hardware, and salacious topics in popular culture. The blog was first launched in 2003. It has been quoted, mentioned, referenced or linked by the Wall Street Journal,[1]Fox News,CNN,[2]National Review, The Weekly Standard, and many notable online magazines/blogs. The site's leading blogger, "Ace of Spades," has also appeared as a guest expert on Fox News, although it is quite rare for him to make media appearances.Ace's co-bloggers include: "Dave in Texas," "DrewM.," "LauraW.," "Gabriel Malor," "Andy," "JohnE.," "BenK.," "CAC," "Jack M.," "Slublog," "rdbrewer," "Maetenloch," "Monty," "Russ in Winterset", and "Purple Avenger,". In addition to these main contributors, other readers of his are able to post to the weblog via its "open blog" mechanism.
Public recognition
Ace of Spades HQ has in the past won "Webbies" for "Best Conservative Blog" (2005 and 2007), Blog of the Year at the 2013 CPAC, and has also won accolades as the "Most Obscene Conservative Blog" in years past.[citation needed] When Ace himself was honored as the "Blogger of the Year" at the Conservative Political Union's Conservative Political Action Conference in March 2008, Brian Faughnan of The Weekly Standard wrote that "Ace has a gift for cutting through political BS, for dissecting the fatal flaws behind liberal arguments, and for doing so with humor.. . [H]e gave an incisive speech on the death of democracy and the rise of tyranny, accompanied by an analysis of how Ronald Reagan re-invigorated the two-party system. Seriously You Guys."[3] Joy McCann of Little Miss Attila wrote of Ace's speech that "AoS gave a rather thoughtful set of remarks on the why New Media is an important part of policy-making, and drew a straight line between the history of policy debate in a town-hall setting and the Reagan Revolution, which rejected the notion—now so prevalent in Europe and elsewhere—that the political class can consider itself our 'betters,' and simply make policy decisions on our behalf. We have, he reminded us, not simply an opportunity to inform ourselves about politics, but a 'duty' to do so. Naturally, alternative streams of information will play a large role in that process." [4]In a 2007 editorial for the Washington Times, editor Tony Blankley described Ace of Spades HQ as a "very smart military blog",[5] which became a catchphrase at the blog.
Ace of Spades HQ - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Guess that's right up your alley.Quote:
"Most Obscene Conservative Blog"
Perfect for the righty fanatics... not so much for anyone else.
Too biting and witty for prudes and dullards like you, I understand.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Yep I guess so. Enjoy your Purple Avenger.
Actually, I would argue that the two statements do differ in meaning.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
It would seem to me that the provisions for that particular tax law would come under- Confidentiality and disclosure. Clearly there are certain instances where disclosure of taxable information is within the boundaries of the law. The most obvious example that springs to mind is that taxable information can be used for research purposes.
Mr Eastman got it pretty right when he used the term, "disclosure" to highlight the problem. The second formulation is inaccurate because it is not a confidentiality issue.
The tax act probably allows the IRS not to disclose certain relevant documents pertaining to the investigation. In other words, it is a refusal to disclose information to the investigators based on some type of inclusive provision contained within the Act. If it were a confidentiality issue then it would need to be recognized as a non-disclosure issue.
The IRS has obviously worked out that that by refusing to disclose relevant information to the investigation they are protecting the confidentiality of the public in terms of tax information. In this particular instance, from the eyes of the investigators.
The benefits of this move are fairly obvious. It means that by protecting the tax information of the public they are also benefiting from an important spin off. Protecting themselves from being exposed.
I'd call it stonewalling
Hello again,
I'd call it a last ditch effort to find a scandal where there in none.Quote:
I'd call it stonewalling
Excon
Yes ,well you have a long record of it, started with a guy called Jackson, I hear, I hear he used stone walls to some effect
I would too. I would call it prudent to sift through information supplied by bloggers.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
In fact, I would say that it is prudent to sift through information supplied by all of the media.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:22 PM. |