[speechlesstx]

So why did Issa withhold some facts that were contrary to his theories? I guess the conservative republican IRS worker was lying and he was taking orders from the White House?

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?

[speechlesstx]

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."

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.

Yeah, yeah, she's a crook for recording the call, right?

[excon]

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

[tomder55]

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.

[speechlesstx]

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

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.

[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

[speechlesstx]

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.

[paraclete]

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

Let's face it you don't really know what a charity is

[talaniman]

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

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?

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.

[talaniman]

I kinda 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.

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.

[cdad]

Or it was the agent personal 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 its 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.

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.

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.

[excon]

Hello again, dad:

Simply saying Im sorry doesn't cut it.

It's true. This agent should be fired. But, I'm waiting for you to tell me that Obama ORDERED him to do it...

Otherwise, I'm getting bored here... What? You think I'm going to DEFEND the IRS?

Excon

[talaniman]

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.

[cdad]

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...

Otherwise, I'm getting bored here... What? You think I'm gonna DEFEND the IRS?

excon

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.

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?

[cdad]

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.

Then here are some of the "rules that apply according to the IRS.

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

[excon]

Hello again, dad:

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.

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.

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

[cdad]

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.

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.

[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

[speechlesstx]

Or it was the agent personal 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 its 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.

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.

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.

[cdad]

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

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.