Outrage grows at IRS 'targeting' of conservative groups
#21
(05-20-2013, 01:04 PM)cletus1 Wrote:
(05-20-2013, 12:54 PM)BeerMe Wrote:
(05-20-2013, 09:22 AM)gapper Wrote: Interesting, although I'm not real surprised. In talking and listening to individuals I encounter, it seems it is those that tend to grab on to manufactured outrage that are most concerned with what has ALLEGEDLY taken place in the White House.

It would be interesting, were it possible, to see a chart illustrating where responders get their "news", too.

Thank you gapper. Before I got to your post I went to Huffington Post. First mention of the IRS is the eighth story down. Oops, as I was typing this, they put another story up, now is the first! But, I'm with you gapper, definitely depends on where (or even IF) the poll responder gets their news.
No brainer. Republicans get their News from Fox News, WND and Rush Limbaugh and everyone else from CNN, ABC, CBS and all the mainstream newspapers.

And anyone seriously interested in unadulterated information doesn't go to any of the above and researches information elsewhere, via the internet and all its resources.
Reply
#22
(05-20-2013, 04:30 PM)Leonard Wrote:
(05-20-2013, 01:04 PM)cletus1 Wrote:
(05-20-2013, 12:54 PM)BeerMe Wrote:
(05-20-2013, 09:22 AM)gapper Wrote: Interesting, although I'm not real surprised. In talking and listening to individuals I encounter, it seems it is those that tend to grab on to manufactured outrage that are most concerned with what has ALLEGEDLY taken place in the White House.

It would be interesting, were it possible, to see a chart illustrating where responders get their "news", too.

Thank you gapper. Before I got to your post I went to Huffington Post. First mention of the IRS is the eighth story down. Oops, as I was typing this, they put another story up, now is the first! But, I'm with you gapper, definitely depends on where (or even IF) the poll responder gets their news.
No brainer. Republicans get their News from Fox News, WND and Rush Limbaugh and everyone else from CNN, ABC, CBS and all the mainstream newspapers.

And anyone seriously interested in unadulterated information doesn't go to any of the above and researches information elsewhere, via the internet and all its resources.
So Leonard, you believe that unbiased information is better found on the Internet than from any of the major news sources? That explains a lot. Big Grin Seriously though, don't you think there are some respectable mainstream news sources that you can generally trust? The New York Times, Al Jazeera, PBS, Reuters and a few others qualify in my opinion. I think it is important to have at least one foreign news source.

I do agree that AlterNet is a good online source for news, but they are advocates for causes too, not that there is anything wrong with that. The problem I have with the Internet is that it is full of conspiracy bullshit masquerading as news. I would like to know your method of separating fact from opinion on the Internet. I could really use it. Smiling
Reply
#23
The internet is a very good source for news. It just requires a bit of work.
Reply
#24
(05-21-2013, 05:52 AM)cletus1 Wrote:
(05-20-2013, 04:30 PM)Leonard Wrote:
(05-20-2013, 01:04 PM)cletus1 Wrote:
(05-20-2013, 12:54 PM)BeerMe Wrote:
(05-20-2013, 09:22 AM)gapper Wrote: Interesting, although I'm not real surprised. In talking and listening to individuals I encounter, it seems it is those that tend to grab on to manufactured outrage that are most concerned with what has ALLEGEDLY taken place in the White House.

It would be interesting, were it possible, to see a chart illustrating where responders get their "news", too.

Thank you gapper. Before I got to your post I went to Huffington Post. First mention of the IRS is the eighth story down. Oops, as I was typing this, they put another story up, now is the first! But, I'm with you gapper, definitely depends on where (or even IF) the poll responder gets their news.
No brainer. Republicans get their News from Fox News, WND and Rush Limbaugh and everyone else from CNN, ABC, CBS and all the mainstream newspapers.

And anyone seriously interested in unadulterated information doesn't go to any of the above and researches information elsewhere, via the internet and all its resources.
So Leonard, you believe that unbiased information is better found on the Internet than from any of the major news sources? That explains a lot. Big Grin Seriously though, don't you think there are some respectable mainstream news sources that you can generally trust? The New York Times, Al Jazeera, PBS, Reuters and a few others qualify in my opinion. I think it is important to have at least one foreign news source.

I do agree that AlterNet is a good online source for news, but they are advocates for causes too, not that there is anything wrong with that. The problem I have with the Internet is that it is full of conspiracy bullshit masquerading as news. I would like to know your method of separating fact from opinion on the Internet. I could really use it. Smiling

I try to be objective.

And with the exception of the NYTimes, Reuters and NPR I agree with your choice of a good news source.

'The House of Rothschild bought Reuters news service in the 1800's. and within the last 20 years, Reuters bought the Associated Press.

There was a time when the Media had heir own investigative reporters but that is long past and now the ''1%'' own the two largest wire services in the world, where most newspapers get their news because they no longer have their own investigative reporting. And now nothing reaches the public without being filtered through them.
Reply
#25
GCG did you find the connection to Citizens United and 501©4s yet?
Reply
#26
I've not sure that I understand the Grand Inquisitor Darrell Issa. I mean the guy has a pretty good rap sheet. Hey he got elected by his constituents.
Reply
#27
My understanding is that the IRS gets many applications for tax-exempt status. They don't have enough people to process all of them. So, in its wisdom, it gave these employees some key words to look for ('targeting' is an incendiary term). Not the most sensitive approach but perhaps more of a pragmatic one than a political one.

The GOP/TEA PARTY wants to impeach Obama every time he puts his pants on.
Reply
#28
(05-20-2013, 01:04 PM)cletus1 Wrote:
(05-20-2013, 12:54 PM)BeerMe Wrote:
(05-20-2013, 09:22 AM)gapper Wrote: Interesting, although I'm not real surprised. In talking and listening to individuals I encounter, it seems it is those that tend to grab on to manufactured outrage that are most concerned with what has ALLEGEDLY taken place in the White House.

It would be interesting, were it possible, to see a chart illustrating where responders get their "news", too.

Thank you gapper. Before I got to your post I went to Huffington Post. First mention of the IRS is the eighth story down. Oops, as I was typing this, they put another story up, now is the first! But, I'm with you gapper, definitely depends on where (or even IF) the poll responder gets their news.
No brainer. Republicans get their News from Fox News, WND and Rush Limbaugh and everyone else from CNN, ABC, CBS and all the mainstream newspapers.

YOU FOOL!
You can't trust the "lamestream" media.
I only read the newspapers I can get at the checkout stand at Food-for-less.
Did you know Jen Aniston still weeps about Brad Pitt? See! That's stuff I can believe and work with.
So, be careful what you read. The mainstream press would have you believe our president is a black man when we all know he is Hawaiian. And Hitler is still alive, living next door to Elvis in a tiny town in New Mexico. All true. It says so in the paper.
Reply
#29
(05-17-2013, 07:52 AM)cletus1 Wrote:
(05-17-2013, 07:43 AM)Willie Krash Wrote:
(05-17-2013, 03:31 AM)GoCometsGo Wrote: Oh that Citizens United ruling.
If you form a corp and say you will use the money in fashion X, then yes it should be verified that you are doing what you say you will do to become tax exempt.

What's that got to do with targeting conservatives?

I gave a non-conservative example. I explained why if you read my post.
As to the Tea Party being racist I've never said that. However what does a possible tax dodge have to do with racism?
Targeting political groups has been going on a long time. It happened on Bush's watch but it seemed to be no big deal.
The Repugs desperate to seek scandal compare it to Watergate. I seriously doubt we will find the President (unlike Watergate) had anything to do with this..
As I reported in another thread CBS News has caught them doctoring Benghazi emails.
If I were the IRS commissioner I would flag all those anti tax tea party groups asking for tax exempt status for additional review. Isn't that the IRS's job?

And yet you would give Media Matters and their tax exempt status a pass? How about the Barack H. Obama foundation that was given its tax exempt status in less than a month by Lois Lerner, one of the key figures in this scandal? That "foundation" is run by Barack's half brother. When this reporters went to the address listed for that "non_profit" they found it didn't exist at that address. How about the head of the IRS visiting the White House over a 150 times in the last two years. During the reign of 43 the IRS commissioner visited the White House once.
Reply
#30
(05-30-2013, 10:57 AM)SFLiberal Wrote:
(05-17-2013, 07:52 AM)cletus1 Wrote:
(05-17-2013, 07:43 AM)Willie Krash Wrote:
(05-17-2013, 03:31 AM)GoCometsGo Wrote: Oh that Citizens United ruling.
If you form a corp and say you will use the money in fashion X, then yes it should be verified that you are doing what you say you will do to become tax exempt.

What's that got to do with targeting conservatives?

I gave a non-conservative example. I explained why if you read my post.
As to the Tea Party being racist I've never said that. However what does a possible tax dodge have to do with racism?
Targeting political groups has been going on a long time. It happened on Bush's watch but it seemed to be no big deal.
The Repugs desperate to seek scandal compare it to Watergate. I seriously doubt we will find the President (unlike Watergate) had anything to do with this..
As I reported in another thread CBS News has caught them doctoring Benghazi emails.
If I were the IRS commissioner I would flag all those anti tax tea party groups asking for tax exempt status for additional review. Isn't that the IRS's job?

And yet you would give Media Matters and their tax exempt status a pass? How about the Barack H. Obama foundation that was given its tax exempt status in less than a month by Lois Lerner, one of the key figures in this scandal? That "foundation" is run by Barack's half brother. When this reporters went to the address listed for that "non_profit" they found it didn't exist at that address. How about the head of the IRS visiting the White House over a 150 times in the last two years. During the reign of 43 the IRS commissioner visited the White House once.
Yeah I get it, Barack Obama is the boogeyman. You see conspiracies and or criminal behavior because you want to see it. That does not meant it exists. So what about Barack Obama brother running an Obama charity. Show me some crimes.
Reply
#31
(05-30-2013, 10:57 AM)SFLiberal Wrote: And yet you would give Media Matters and their tax exempt status a pass? How about the Barack H. Obama foundation that was given its tax exempt status in less than a month by Lois Lerner, one of the key figures in this scandal? That "foundation" is run by Barack's half brother. When this reporters went to the address listed for that "non_profit" they found it didn't exist at that address. How about the head of the IRS visiting the White House over a 150 times in the last two years. During the reign of 43 the IRS commissioner visited the White House once.
Lois Lerner? Appointed during the Bush administration? You did open the Bush (43) box.
I'm not a big Media Matters Readers so could you give us some specifics where they violate their 501©3 status?
If Fox and The Daily Caller get their way it will affect conservative 501s too. I doubt we'll see MM lose it's status.
I'm not surprised that Bush had only One visit. He was giving it all away.
So should I ask the same question as well re existing conservative 501s?
I mean hell W has a 501©3
How about Jeb's Foundation for Excellence in Education?

Here ya go, 2006..
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/07/us/07church.html?_r=1&
Liberal churches were getting Acorned.
Reply
#32
The outrage will be settled in court: http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/29/aclj-f...ld-follow/

ACLJ files suit against IRS on behalf of 25 tea party groups, more could follow

Posted By Caroline May On 3:06 PM 05/29/2013 In Politics | No Comments

The conservative American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) filed a lawsuit against the Obama administration on behalf of 25 tea party groups over IRS targeting Wednesday.

“The IRS and the federal government are not going to get away with this unlawful targeting of conservative groups,” ACLJ chief counsel Jay Sekulow said. “As this unconstitutional scheme continues even today, the only way to stop this flagrant and arrogant abuse of our clients’ rights is to file a federal lawsuit, which we have done.”

The lawsuit names Attorney General Eric Holder, Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew, former IRS Commissioner Steven Miller, IRS’ Tax Exempt Division Director Lois Lerner, Office of Rulings and Agreements Director Holly Paz, and “unnamed” IRS officials as defendants.

The suit comes as Washington is in the midst of four investigations into the IRS’ targeting of conservative groups.

ACLJ charges that the Obama administration violated the First Amendment, the Fifth Amendment and the IRS’ own regulations, and calls for a declaratory judgment that the Obama administration unlawfully delayed and obstructed the organizations’ applications for tax-exempt status.

The suit further calls for injunctive relief to protect the organizations from further IRS attacks or possible retribution, as well as punitive monetary damages to be determined later.

ACLJ is suing some of the officials named in the suit not only in their official capacity, but also their individual capacities, including Miller (who is only named in his individual capacity), Lerner, Paz, and the “unnamed officials.”

“We are trying to get to individual accountability because these people made individual choices to violate the Constitution in intentionally targeting these groups,” ACLJ senior counsel David French explained to The Daily Caller in an interview. “The scale of the targeting and the deliberateness of it is unlike anything I have seen in almost 20 years of litigation.”

French added that down the road, if the court awards the organizations compensatory and punitive monetary damages, the individual defendants would likely be responsible to pay.

French said that he expects ACLJ will likely engage in additional action over the targeting as more conservative groups seek their assistance.

“I do expect future litigation,” he said. “We are receiving contacts from groups that are just now beginning to tell us their stories and we’re following up on all the contacts that we get.”

He noted that there could be additional lawsuits or more parties added as plaintiffs to the suit filed Wednesday.

Of the 25 groups the ACLJ is representing, 13 received their tax-exempt status after long delays; 10 continue to wait for an answer; and two withdrew their applications due to the IRS’ process.

Follow Caroline on Twitter
Reply
#33
Alright, Pat to the rescue.
Reply
#34
It seems the IRS didn't visit the WH 157 times. A swing and a miss for Fox News.
Reply
#35
Quote:This government is out of control, but at least the conservatives are finding out what it is like to be on the other side of the coin.

I concur.
Reply
#36
(06-02-2013, 07:15 AM)Willie Krash Wrote: It seems the IRS didn't visit the WH 157 times. A swing and a miss for Fox News.

Says the Atlantic Monty who got their information from Dan Pfeiffer, the White House senior adviser to the president for strategy and communications. Considering all the lies coming from this administration you are going to believe the fox that is watching the hen house? That article was meant for the lower information voters and the kook-aid drinkers. Even Shulman himself did not deny the visits when he was questioned by Congress a few days ago. His sarcastic response when asked why all the visits was he was there for the Easter egg rolls. That was the best excuse he could come up it. Oh, and did I mention that his wife, Susan L. Anderson, worksfor Public Campaign, a lefty organization whose goal is to target Conservative non-profits and which is funded by groups like theAFL-CIO, AFSCME, SEIU, and Move On. Purely coincidence I'm sure.
Reply
#37
Fox got their info from the 'Daily Caller'

http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/29/irss-s...et-member/
Reply
#38
SFL,
The story lost it's legs. You were Acorned.
From Politco,
They show how often Shulman was cleared by security to come to the White House or the Old Executive Office Building next door, not whether he actually made the trip. Because agency heads are often waived past security, the visitor logs show that Shulman only tapped his security badge to enter the grounds 11 times from 2009 to 2012.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/do...z2V4myixA3

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heat...out-irs-co

The story is changing by the hour, we shall see.
The WH visitor logs are online. Cleared to visit and a visit are two different things.
Reply
#39
He might have been lunch dating some WH staffer.
Reply
#40
From CNN this morning:

Quote:IRS Employee: D.C. Told Us To Target Tea Party

By Kerry Picket 2 Jun 2013, 9:46 AM PDT

House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA) revealed new testimony from IRS employees on CNN's State of The Union on Sunday. According to transcribed excerpts released by the Committee, a Cincinnati IRS employee made it clear they were told by Washington, D.C. personnel to give extra scrutiny to Tea Party groups:

Q: In early 2010, was there a time when you became aware of applications that referenced Tea Party or other conservative groups?

A: In March of 2010, I was made aware.

******

Q: Okay. Now, was there a point around this time period when [your supervisor] asked you to do a search for similar applications?

A: Yes.

Q: To the best of your recollection, when was this request made?

A: Sometime in early March of 2010.

******

Q: Did [your supervisor] give you any indication of the need for the search, any more context?

A: He told me that Washington, D.C., wanted some cases.


******

Q: So as of April 2010, these 40 cases were held at that moment in your group; is that right?

A: Some were.

Q: How many were held there?

A: Less than 40. Some went to Washington, D.C.

Q: Okay. How many went to Washington, D.C.?

A: I sent seven.

******

Q: So you prepared seven hard copy versions of the applications to go to Washington, D.C.?

A: Correct.

******

Q: Did he give you any sort of indication as to why he requested you to do that?

[…]

A: He said Washington, D.C. wanted seven. Because at one point I believe I heard they were thinking 10, but it came down to seven. I said okay, seven.

Q: How did you decide which seven were sent?

A: Just the first seven.

Q: The first seven to come into the system?

A: Yes.

*****

Q: Did anyone else ever make a request that you send any cases to Washington?

A: [Different IRS employee] wanted to have two cases that she couldn't -- Washington, D.C. wanted them, but she couldn't find the paper. So she requested me, through an email, to find these cases for her and to send them to Washington, D.C.

Q: When was this, what time frame?

A: I don't recall the time frame, maybe May of 2010.

******

Q: But just to be clear, she told you the specific names of these applicants.

A: Yes.

Q: And she told you that Washington, D.C. had requested these two specific applications be sent to D.C.

A: Yes, or parts of them.

******

Q: Okay. So she asked you to send particular parts of these applications.

A: Mm-hmm.

Q: And that was unusual. Did you say that?

A: Yes.

Q: And she indicated that Washington had requested these specific parts of these specific applications; is that right?

A: Correct.

******

Q: So what do you think about this, that allegation has been made, I think as you have seen in lots of press reports, that there were two rogue agents in Cincinnati that are sort of responsible for all of the issues that we have been talking about today. What do you think about those allegations?

[…]

A: It's impossible. As an agent we are controlled by many, many people. We have to submit many, many reports. So the chance of two agents being rogue and doing things like that could never happen.

******

Q: And you've heard, I'm sure, news reports about individuals here in Washington saying this is a problem that was originated in and contained in the Cincinnati office, and that it was the Cincinnati office that was at fault. What is your reaction to those types of stories?

[…]

A: Well, it's hard to answer the question because in my mind I still hear people saying we were low-level employees, so we were lower than dirt, according to people in D.C. So, take it for what it is. They were basically throwing us underneath the bus.

******

Q: So is it your perspective that ultimately the responsible parties for the decisions that were reported by the IG are not in the Cincinnati office?

A: I don't know how to answer that question. I mean, from an agent standpoint, we didn't do anything wrong. We followed directions based on other people telling us what to do.

Q: And you ultimately followed directions from Washington; is that correct?

A: If direction had come down from Washington, yes.

Q: But with respect to the particular scrutiny that was given to Tea Party applications, those directions emanated from Washington; is that right?

A: I believe so.

A more senior IRS Cincinnati employee complained about micromanagement from D.C.:

Q: But you specifically recall that the BOLO terms included "Tea Party?"

A: Yes, I do.

Q: And it was your understanding -- was it your understanding that the purpose of the BOLO was to identify Tea Party groups?

A: That is correct.

Q: Was it your understanding that the purpose of the BOLO was to identify conservative groups?

A: Yes, it was.

Q: Was it your understanding that the purpose of the BOLO was to identify Republican groups?

A: Yes, it was.

******

Q: Earlier I believe you informed us that the primary reason for applying for another job in July [2010] was because of the micromanagement from [Washington, DC, IRS Attorney], is that correct?

A: Right. It was the whole Tea Party. It was the whole picture. I mean, it was the micromanagement. The fact that the subject area was extremely sensitive and it was something that I didn't want to be associated with.

Q: Why didn't you want to be associated with it?

A: For what happened now. I mean, rogue agent? Even though I was taking all my direction from EO Technical [Washington, D.C], I didn't want my name in the paper for being this rogue agent for a project I had no control over.

Q: Did you think there was something inappropriate about what was happening in 2010?

A: Yes. The inappropriateness was not processing these applications fairly and timely.

******

Q: You have stated you had concerns with the fairness and the timeliness of the application process. Did you have concerns with just the fact that these cases were grouped together and you were the only one handling them?

A: I was the only one handling the Tea Party's, that is correct.

Q: Did that specifically cause you concern?

A: Yes, it did. And I was the only person handling them.

Q: Were you concerned that you didn't have the capacity to process all of the applications in a timely manner?

A: That is correct. And it is just -- I mean, like you brought up, the micromanagement, the fact that the topic was just weirdly handled was a huge concern to me.

******

Twenty-five Tea Party groups are suing the IRS, Attorney General Eric Holder and senior IRS officials, claiming the Obama administration unlawfully targeted their groups because of their political beliefs.

The Oversight Committee will be conducting hearings this week focusing on the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration report on excessive IRS conference spending and abuses of taxpayer dollars. Chairman Issa sent a letter to then-IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman in April, 2012 regarding the agency's bloated spending habits. According to the Committee, the IRS spent $50 million on at least 220 conferences between 2010 and 2012.



How can anyone approve of a government agency targeting fellow American's based solely on their political belief? This is what happened with the IRS with the blessing of the Obama administration. They took their cue from the CIC who called the opposition "the enemy". We are officially in the age of tyranny.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)