Re: Truthseeker -- There was no red flags on this case and how do you know so
much about his business ( hearsay ) or from political cronies that didn't
like him supporting Romney ? And by the way they didn;t find any thing wrong.
You sound like the IRS people who did the targeting-If they are rich it is okay
to go after them they are crooks anyway and they don't like big
gov't.I can see how the IRS got their Ideas --
Re:DesertPeteThe guy who had to spend $80,000? The "Poor"
Melaluca multi-millionaire--whose business straddles the line of pyramid
club?Large corporations are regularly subjected to IRS audits. It
is a normal part of business. The IRS job is to catch cheaters and
collect revenue that is due. The IRS is going to look at obvious red flag
areas, as any other law enforcement agency does. The 501 (4) (c) area is one
ripe for abuse and the Treasury guidelines for this area are vague. The IRS is
understaffed in this area as well. The only potential illegal activity by the
IRS is if they publically released private data from applicants before
approving/rejecting applications. Once an application is approved, the data can
legally be made public. Furthermore, applicants have the right to
sue the IRS if their applications aren't reviewed within a certain time
frame. Nobody is prohibiting people from conducting business.
People can start 501 (4) (c)s and not even apply to the IRS.
Howard,Right, let's forget John Swallow, the IRS, the AP and
Benghazi. With all the floor sweeping, my carpet is looking lumpy.
I would not say no one was not hurt. But a circus will hurt us all more and I
stand by that. To hold the President and his supporters accountable, the best
way at this point is at the ballot box. Perhaps, some investigation by an
independent body is necessary, and I will go for that, but lengthy congressional
hearings and the grandstanding it usually begets is a waste of time with the
issues we now face. Impeachment hearings will lead nowhere. The president will
not be removed so again it is a waste of time to go down this route. It might
make some conservatives feel better but it's a waste of time. I think to
the impeachment of President Clinton. Where did that get us. If we all
remember, we had Enron and the dot.com bubble burst. Perhaps if Congress had
kept its "eye on the ball" that economic downturn could have been
avoided. But Republicans went on a crusade they knew they couldn't win and
in the end more people were hurt because the economy went down. Now amplify
that situation many times. Again, we don't have time for a circus...
The "no one died" defense should be abandoned by both parties. It is
nonsensical. No one died in John Swallow's problem, Bill Clinton, Elliot
Spitzer, Mark Sandford, Eric Wiener, Richard Nixon, you get the idea. The
questions about the IRS, Benghazi and spying on the AP/Fox News are potentially
serious breaches of government function irrespective of the body count.
The scandals referred to as trivial are not trivial. Sweeping them under the rug
is not in the pubic interest. They have their individual negative consequences
and taken collectively they destroy confidence in a government of the people, by
the people and for the people. The VA is an open embarrassment and has been for
decades. Anyone truly familiar with the VA system of medicine is terrified that
it is looked upon fondly by some politicians as a model for general health care
delivery. The VA is single payer, non-competitive, maddeningly bureaucratic,
steeped in the civil service mentality that "you can't fire me" and
is tragically, sometimes fatally inefficient. The original purpose of treating
those who have suffered injury in the service of their country, it is now a
monument to politics as usual and wastefulness.
No one was hurt --- You must have your head in the sand -- ask the guy who had
to spend 80,000 dollars to to defend his company from audits that that had no
basis.--- plus all the other people who was audited for no reason only because
they believed a certain way that didn't agree with the gov'ts way of
doing things.Thousand of dollars and time spent to defend illegal Gov't
practices.---- You say no one was denied their tax exempt status ? Many are
still waiting to get processed and many have given up trying to get an
answer.Many were just stalled in the beginning of the election cycle for
political reasons.When you write about something you need to get the facts and
not from the mainstream media.
I know many conservatives will call for impeachment. Two other Presidents were
impeached for far less. But here is the rub, we don't have time for this
circus. We have too many pressing issues to be solved. I want every
conservative to look into the mirror and ask themselves, how this would be good
for this country? Would he be removed from office if impeachment went forward?
Not a snowball's chance you know where. But valuable time that could help
solve important issues such as health care, jobs, immigration, entitlement
reform etc. will be put on the back burner. This is a serious time that needs
some serious solutions. I am too upset with these scandals and abuses of
powers, and perhaps the people through the ballot in 2014 can send the message
to the President and his supporters, that this is unacceptable. But we simply
don't have the time for impeachment hearings or grandstanding politicians
in congressional hearings why more pressing problems effecting far larger
numbers of Americans go unsolved...
IMO, how our govt. treats its veterans is a crime, pure and simple.
Truth Seeker! Stop it! You are using actual quotes from Rice and the CIA talking
points and actual testimony from hearings? How dare you?! We don't want ANY
of that! We just want to yell and scream and make totally unfounded,
unsubstantiated accusations. We want to use absolutely no evidence to back up
any of our wild claims. After all if Glen Beck said it and I read it on the
internets, that's good enough for me, and it should be good enough for you!
Who do you think you are?!
re:LostinDCLet's look at the actual talking points. Talking points drafted by the CIA, first sentence (which didn't change
through all the various drafts)"Attack were spontaneously inspired by
the protests at the U.S. embassy in Cairo.”Susan Rice:"Based on the best information we have to date, what our assessment is as
of the present is in fact what began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to
what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo where, of course, as you know,
there was a violent protest outside of our embassy sparked by this hateful
video." It is obvious Rice is referring to the videos inspiring
the protests in Cairo and the attack in Benghazi was inspired by Cairo. A=CairoB=BenghaziC=VideoC inspired AA inspired
BRice did not say C inspired B. Rice said A inspired B.
I can't help but feel like this "righteous indignation" that the
right is demonstrating is, in a way, an attempt to rationalize their conscience
for the impeachable offenses committed by President Bush. I think
they know that he screwed up big time. And now by overreacting for the IRS and
Bengazhi, it somehow makes them feel better about the Bush administration's
lies.How sadHow many more of our dear daddies would be
alive today... How many more beautiful mommies would be alive today... How many
more of our precious children would be alive today had the right showed the same
skeptism for Bush as they have for Obama? Does the right understand
that every white cross represents not only a life, but a family and community?
Why then... Are they so quick to send these people into harms way? In the Book
of Mormon, the nephites engaged in war as a last resort. In self defense. Why
then are we so eager to attack countries who haven't directly attacked us?
Why isn't war a last resort anymore?
I concur with the Oversight Review Committee report, which detailed serious
problems in the security at the Benghazi mission. That report made specific
recommendations for the future. In other words, that actual, serious,
real-world problem at Benghazi has been thoroughly investigated and addressed.
Let's separate out the various aspects of the Benghazi situation.
Was security adequate? No, obviously not. Who carried out the attack?
Investigation is on-going, with some solid intel on perps, not yet actionable.
But the talking points? That's just silly partisan nonsense.
Focusing on who said what on Sunday talk shows protects no ambassadors and
catches no terrorists. Cut it out. And don't say 'the video had
nothing to do with it.' State had spent the entire day dealing with
fallout from the video. It's hardly surprising, in a chaotic environment,
that some intel analysts conflated the video with the attack. Just simple human
error, and completely inconsequential.
Leading up to the passage of obamacare, all the nutty leftists on here, were
going on and on about the masterful, amazingly awesome job of dispensing
healthcare the VA was doing, and that was part of their selling point in favor
of obamacare. Now we find out it's underfunded and scandal ridden? I am
shocked, I can't believe it! I am sure the government would never do that!
The Benghazi attack was unabashedly blamed on a non sequential video that no one
had ever seen - on daily talk shows, in the news and even at the UN for several
weeks when the administration knew from the get go it was an organized targeted
terrorist attack. The hours long attack and our ambassador was horribly tortured
before he died - after begging for more security!The IRS scandal?
According to the Washington Post 3 conservative groups were given the okay for a
501c4 status over the 3 year period in question while 67 liberal groups were
approved - including one by Obama's half brother that was fast tracked in
30 days with with no existing address. Some conservative groups were help up for
up to 3 years and are still in limbo. They were asked what they prayed for in
their meetings, access to their facebook and twitter accounts, etc. These are
GESTAPO methods and not appropriate in America.Holder lied about his
knowledge to the press scandal with the paper trail to prove it. He signed off
on the search warrant the for Fox News' James Rosen a co-conspirator in a
national security leaks case.
You yourself say the story changed. If the story changed, either the part that
was changed, or what it was changed to, HAD to conflict. So at least ONE of
them had to be untrue. Untrue=lie.There, I have provided the
evidence. It is OBVIOUS to those who will see it.Theirs was an
attempt to communicate the scenario that would allow the least damage to their
re-election campaign. Don’t know why they bothered, the lapdog media
would not have bothered, anyway.The talking points said a
spontaneous reaction to a video (one that had been out for months on end)You say the talking points indicated terrorists.Which was
it, terrorists or spontaneous uprising?Again a conflict – one
or the other was a LIE!Don't you ever get tired of apologizing
for this guy?
Re:StarBrightDuring the May 8 congressional hearings on the Benghazi
attacks, witness Gregory Hicks -- who was the Deputy Chief of Mission at the
U.S. embassy in Tripoli at the time of the attacks -- explained that his team
had proposed that a small group of four special forces troops leave Tripoli to
provide aid in Benghazi, but that they were not authorized to do so by Special
Operations Command Africa, a division of the U.S. military:REP.
ROBIN KELLY: You said that four military personnel were told not to the board
that plane and that this call came from Special Operations Command Africa. Is
that right? HICKS: That's what I understand.As
The Wall Street Journal reported, diplomats on the ground the night of the
attacks had learned of new threats to the Tripoli embassy complex, and a
Pentagon spokesperson confirmed to U.S. News that the assessment of Special
Operations Command Africa leadership at the time was that "it was more
important for those guys to be in Tripoli" for embassy security.
"the US military does not fly troops into hostile environments without any
planning, specific clear and relevant intelligence or support. That's why
troops boarding helicopters were told to stand down." And I ask again, who
told them to stand down? Apparently only the president can do that?So Samuelson if an embassy/consulate/safe house is attacked many, many times
don't you think there should've been planning? You don't think
the state dept shouldn't have had additional protection for our citizens?
Valerie jarrett in the WH has far more security then our Amb.BTW, if
we don't send troops into hostile environments what in the heck are they
doing in Afghanistan?
This letter demonstrates the kind of fog you live in, when your a full on BHO
brown noser. While were at it, I don't recall anyone being damaged by the
watergate scandal during the Nixon administration. Nobody killed or murdered,
nobody hurt financially or physically....sounds like a lot of to do about
How can you guys live in a country that persecutes innocent republicans, watches
its ambassadors killed on tv while eating popcorn, personally oversee's the
IRS's attack on conservatives and patriots, forces religions to change
there teachings and has invited the antichrist to the white house for dinner as
soon as he done taking 26 two week vacations this year.oh yeah he's a
marxist, communist, socialist, dictator, king, ...never mind the conflicting
definitions, the fox listeners don't know the difference, and aren't
going to look it up anyway.Maybe it's because you truly want to
hate Obama and you somehow need to legitimize this hatred thru these fantasy
conspiracy therories, which have little merit outside the faux family
entertainers.The VA is just another extension of health care that
the do nothing, didn't serve, warhawks see as freeloaders, you know the
Star Bright,Inform yourself. "Help could have arrived?" I know
that's a favorite right wing talking point, but it's nonsense. No
less an expert than Bob Gates, former Defense Secretary and a Republican has
made clear--the US military does not fly troops into hostile environments
without any planning, specific clear and relevant intelligence or support.
That's why troops boarding helicopters were told to stand down. As
for 501 (c) (4) applications, remember that political groups are specifically
prohibited from receiving tax exempt status. Lots of groups that should have
been denied that status got it anyway do to all the noise about it. And
don't talk to liberals about IRS targeting--during the Bush years, liberal
groups were routinely harassed. I'm not saying the IRS was right; I am
saying, once again, no actual harm was done.
If Obama's apologists spent half as much time defending the indefensible
and spent twice as much time reading BOTH sides, they might finally see that
Obama's actions are a scourge on America. No less an "expert" than
Bob Woodward, the journalist who helped bring down the Nixon Presidency, has
aimed his scorn at Obama, not because Woodward is some kind of "right
wing" extremist, but because Woodward, unlike Obama's apologists, does
not believe a word that Obama says or that Obama's friends say about
Obama.When a top-flight democrat and a top-notch journalist can
punch holes in Obama's tall-tales, maybe Obama's apologists need to
take note. Watching Obama steer the Ship-of-State into an iceberg should be
more than even Obama's apologists can stomach.
Of course one of the "real scandal" is how our servicemen/woman are
treted by this government!Interesting - only harm in Benghazi was people
were "slightly less informed for a few days."So help could've
arrived before the last 2 brave men were murdered. When notified about the Amb -
they were asked to list him as "John Doe." Are you kidding me? Who gave
the order to stand down? Where was the president? Why only one phone call? Obama
didn't know about the Amb death until the next morning! This
administration lied!"None one denied..." So those
people/organizations who have waited 3 years and are still waiting should be
consoled? Was it OK to intimidate these groups and even ask them what was said
in their prayers? Romney supporter in Idaho had to spend nearly $100,000 to
defend from IRS & he did nothing wrong. Then they went after the top
supporters. Remember it could be you next time. BTW, ask Gibson Guitars about
it. Sorry Mike, Shulman visited over 157 times. No one denies it was with
Pres 0bama! There are charts that show his visits against all others. Amazing!
A little government wrong here, a little government wrong there. How many
'winked' at little wrongs a corruption make?
>Lost in DCYou claim to be familiar with my work. So you are aware
that I have recently and publicly called for President Obama's impeachment,
right? What I care about is evidence. And there is no evidence, none,
that the Obama administration lied to the American people in regards to
Benghazi. None. Zero. Zippo. Bupkus.What the evidence does clearly show
is that in the midst of a very chaotic situation, lots of conflicting
information was being processed, and in an attempt to communicate the best
conclusion reached through all of it, the talking points got the story a little
wrong. And I do mean a little wrong. The talking points did say that we had
been attacked by terrorists. Just got the motivation a little wrong. This had
no effect on the election. Give it up.
Every time I read a Mike Richards post I end up asking myself why I do so. Most,
like todays is nothing but a rehash of the sludge promulgated by right wing web
sites. Reality in that view, is nothing but a black and white universe where
all things "right" are right and all things "left" are wrong...
or course left wing sites are as guilty only in reverse. Would that life were
that simple. Impeach? Yah, that really worked with President Clinton
didn't it. They couldn't muster but a handful of votes in the Senate
even though they controlled the chamber. Now Clinton is getting close to a 70%
approval rating in the polls. Nice work, guys. Want to try again on President
Obama? Go for it, but don't be surprised if the backlash ushers Hillary
Clinton into the oval office.
It's true. The recent 'scandals' are not as serious as those
screaming about them want them to be.
Amen.I am very surprised with the problems at the VA. I thought
when General Shinseki was appointed, the VA would be in good hands.As for the IRS:The scandal is they are severly understaffed,
particularly in the area of scrutinizing exempt applications. Over
80 percent of applications submitted for tax-exempt status were from
conservative organizations.The only organization to have its
tax-exempt status revoked was one run by Democratic women to try and encourage
more women to run for office.There is no requirement that any
501(c)(4) organization apply for approval of their tax-exempt status. If they do
not apply, there is a risk of audit and disqualification down the road, but they
are not required to apply to be a 501(c)(4) entity.There was no
limitation imposed by the IRS on these groups' ability to influence the
2012 election.Many of the IRS requests for information came about
because of activities observed by agents in real time.
Makid, Republicans were howling to the administration about IRS abuses. Their
complaints were ignored.I have relatives who serve the government
overseas. It is frightening to know that under attack they would not be helped
or rescued if it would make this administration look bad during a political
We also know that Republicans sat on the IRS information for more than 9 months
before they brought it forward. Why didn't they bring it up last year
during the election?That question should be asked more than any
other question in the entire IRS "Scandal" debacle. What are or were
the Republicans trying to hide. If it was as they are saying now to protect the
American people, why not bring it out when they first learned about it last
July?That is what people should be focusing on, what were they
Eric – one of our more eloquent BO apologists.So glibly
dismisses being lied to by the BO misadministration. So what if BO lied, he
asks. Eric does not care that people were misinformed.The lies were
intended to divert attention from this misadministration’s complete
mishandling of the situation before and during its occurrence.I am
disappointed, but not surprised, that they were able to distract Eric from the
real scandal.He also calmly dismisses IRS abuses.“So what” he asks, “if a few groups (opposed to BO and his
cabal) were subjected to additional scrutiny? They got their status in the
end.”He does not care that the abuses cost them additional
time and money, after all, they likely opposed BO. He appears unaware that
there are timing issues that impact the goals and designs of almost any group.
The status is less valuable if the timing is delayed.It’s akin
to being charged a premium for concert tickets, but not receiving them until the
show is over. But according to Eric, that’s OK, because they got the
tickets.Roland,Thank you for pointing out BO's additional
Mike,I think we learned yesterday that the head of the IRS visited
the White House 118 times, not the President. Many people work in the house.
There were bi-weekly meetings of staff about the implementation of the
Affordable Care Act which the head of the IRS often attended.
No harm, no foul? Who is sitting in the White House today? Would he have been
re-elected if he had not covered up Benghazi until after the election? Would he
have been re-elected if he had not used the power of the I.R.S. against those
who opposed him? Would he have been re-elected if he had not thrown the 1st
Amendment protections of a free press under the bus?Not only was
there a foul but now this nation will have to endure yet another president being
impeached for lying and for using the power of his office against his political
"enemies".The scandal grows everyday. Just yesterday we
learned that the head of the I.R.S. visited Obama 118 times, or virtually
everyday that Obama was not on vacation, on some expensive outing at
taxpayers' expense or on the golf-course. The dots are being
connected, one by one. Obama will be known as the most corrupt president to
ever hold that office before this is over.No harm? He can never
repay the damage that he has done to America.
Good points. And the VA problems span far more than just one presidency.
How confused this guy really is. The VA might be dealing with people badly
which is wrong but to believe the other two items mentioned are nothing is
wrong.In Bengazi, we ignored calls for help and we left people to fend for
themselves without doing or trying anything and then we lie about it. Sorry but
that is something.The IRS targeting groups is not wrong? Are you crazy?
And by the way many have not been helped yet.It just might help if
somebody was actually in charge of the federal government, we need a leader not
In the 60 and 70's It was a lot worse. If I was to compare then and now
would be like night and day. They are like every place else, doing the best they
can with what they've got. I believe that there is honor in in the VA. I
While we're piling on the Obama administration, here's another scandal
that has gone unmentioned in most of the press: HSBC the British banking giant,
has been laundering money for the Mexican drug cartels, to the tune of hundreds
of millions of dollars. Not one single HSBC exec is going to face prison time
for this crime.A poor kid selling marijuana on the street will
certainly get jail time for his low dollar crime, but launder hundreds of
millions of dollars and simply pay a fine that is meaningless in terms of your
overall wealth. Just one more example of how standards of law and justice apply
differently to the rich than they do to you and me.Oh and I agree,
there not much there with Benghazi and the IRS "scandal".