Oh, no it isn't. It's to squelch any organization that Mr. Obama and
his thugs don't agree with. The fact that a pro-Obama group is mentioned is
just a diversion. I'm sure that there is some sort of collusion going on
there, some closed-door deal. You trust the IRS these days? If you do, you are a
Does anyone really believe that Obama's politicized and hyper partisan IRS
"muscle" will enforce these new provisions fairly and equally to groups
on both right and left?Whatever happened to the thugs who forced Tea
Party groups into hibernation until after the 2012 elections by harassing them
and refusing to approve their applications? Basically nothing. Results-
another election stolen.
With this administration, it's clearly an attempt to suppress dissent (i.e.
disagreement). Sure, this is trumpeted as being aimed at all groups, but
it's practically a certainty that liberal groups will be found to be exempt
somehow, or "not conducting political activity" or the like, and be
given a pass, while any group that they think might be conservative will be
found to be so, regardless of the facts. But leftists like
dictatorships and government controls on speech, so I'm pretty sure the
leftists on this forum won't see any problem with using the government to
punish people you disagree with.
@Vanceone & @DN Subscriber, Do you really believe the these groups should be
considered charity organizations? Who is it that these Uber Wealthy
organizations are helping? They can pay taxes like everyone else, no special
Spend all the money you want, whenever you want, rant as loudly as you want and
make it as one-sided as you want. Just don't demand that it should all be
ANONYMOUS, too. Stand up, throw out a scolding finger and scream "Koch
Brothers Industries are people, too, my friend! I'm working for them!"
The IRS is doing it's job catching organizations that are illegally
claiming to qualify as tax exempt. These organizations have blatantly and
illegally involved themselves in the political process.Tossing in
the free speech red herring shows desperation. Nobody is quashing free speech.
These organizations are free to back any candidate they choose as long as it is
not on the backs of taxpayers. This is not punitive but about
partisan political groups illegally gaming the system. I can easily name as many
left leaning groups as right wing groups that have illegally used tax exemption.
"Whatever happened to the thugs who forced Tea Party groups into hibernation
until after the 2012 elections by harassing them and refusing to approve their
applications? "Oh please. Is that the spin they're selling
on FOX these days? Ludicrous. But here's the bottom line - I
don't care which way your fundraising organization is tilted. Left, right,
it makes no difference. If you're soliciting funds for the purposes of
influencing elections then your donors shouldn't be anonymous and
you're definitely _not_ a tax-deductible "charity."Sunlight is the best antiseptic. Time to bring these "charity" groups
into the bright light of public accountability.
Look, there may be merit to removing the tax exemption, whatever. But
regardless of the merits of the argument, the facts are that the IRS and this
Administration have a documented history of punishing one side of the political
spectrum. If this was actually applied evenly, and none of these
groups were allowed to claim this tax exempt status, that would be one thing.
But we all know that this is not so: this is only going to be
applied against groups that this Administration doesn't like, thus favoring
one side of the political equation. Why should liberals get to skate and be tax
free while conservative groups don't?You people arguing that
the IRS should do this: Because they have a history of targeting the
president's opponents, there is no way that this should be allowed unless
all liberal groups are taken out first. Only when they can prove that this is
not going to be abused should anyone even think that this is a good idea. Do
you trust Obama and the IRS to do this evenhandedly? If not( and who believes
they will? ), then you should be against this too.
"the facts are that the IRS and this Administration have a documented
history of punishing one side of the political spectrum."Documented where? In your imagination? On FOX? (But that's being
redundant.)There is zero objective evidence that there was any
directive from the White House to selectively target opposition groups. Zero.
What there _is_ evidence of is that in one IRS office, some agents
gave extra scrutiny to groups claiming tax-exempt status that were in reality
behaving like political fundraising organizations. At first it
looked like Tea Party groups were targeted, but as the investigation broadened
it turned out that both right-leaning _and_ left-leaning groups claiming
tax-exempt status for what were obviously political activities were under
heightened scrutiny, exactly as they should be.There has never been
any credible evidence that these investigations were undertaken at the direction
of the White House.
I expected this, Blue. Liberals have attempted to shove the facts under the rug
on all of Obama's scandals. He knows nutting! He only finds out by
reading the paper that his government is always doing stuff illegally and
unethically that benefits the democrats!Point 1) the IRS
commissioner lived at the white house over several years. What was he doing?
They won't tell us. 2) That single office is, in fact, the only office
that deals with these applications, so it was the IRS as a whole. 3) those
workers testified that the federal office in DC was mandating these reviews, out
of the ordinary. 4) The White House general counsel and several other white
house employees knew all along this was happening, and did nothing to stop it
(at best). 5) Any left leaning group was rubber stamped immediately, while right
leaning groups were sent questionnaires seeking to know such things as the
content of prayers, as well as giving out their tax returns to leftist political
groups 6) No one has been punished for any of this, which is standard procedure
in the Obama administration--if you get caught, you get a vacation on the
Obama was powered to the Presidency by using hyper partisan tax exempt political
groups like ACORN. Like most despots, Obama is now attempting to destroy the
very engines that he used to gain power.
Vanceone,None of what you're claiming is borne out by the
official IRS Inspector General's report released last July. Google it. That
Inspector General's report, and subsequent investigations, have thoroughly
debunked your claims.What you're calling a conspiracy is
nothing more than the result of the entirely predictable confusion that arose
within the IRS's tax-exemption division from the explosive growth of
"public charity" organizations fundraising for political purposes while
seeking tax-exempt status in the aftermath of the Supreme Court's
"Citizens United" decision. But most importantly, answer
this question: Should _any_ group, regardless of their political goals, whose
primary function is raising money with the intention of influencing elections be
given tax-exempt status and their donors kept anonymous? I believe
the answer to that question should be a resounding "no." Do you
There is a reason they are called "SECRET Combinations".Witness the modern day Gadianton's we've been so warned about.
I still think the best way to handle political speech is to allow one person, 10
people, or thousands, to combine forces and fund all they want for any political
person or position. That to me rings of what the Constitution had in mind with
the 1st Amendment. The only thing I would like is full disclosure of names or
organizations who are part of the contributions. That way, if some billionaire
was funding the majority of some campaign, it would be known by the public.
George Soros for example. Or, the Koch brothers for you Democrats. As for
taxes, rewriting the tax laws would be required to tax these complicated 501C3
type entities. Way to many loopholes exist, and in this case, it is broken so
let's fix it. Tax law is so complicated that no one really understands
all the ins and outs of it. Much like the ACA.
Before Mr. Rock starts throwing out loaded terms like "despot", he
should be reminded that a REAL despot wouldn't put up with any criticism.
He'd just dispose of opponents, large or small. That means that either
Obama is nowhere near a real despot, or Rock is a very brave guy. I think
it's the former.
How about we appoint someone to rein in the IRS? 8^\
Blue: If what I said was wrong, then why, in fact, did the IRS admit that they
did something wrong? It's not like Fox News ran some biased investigation
and found this out: Lois Lerner flat out apologized and admitted they had
targeted conservative groups inappropriately. Unprovoked, in an industry
meeting (actually, it was planned to try and head off the Inspector General
report that blasted them later on). Still, why is it always the
case with this administration, Blue? Why is it that ALL "mistakes,
inappropriateness and confusion" just so happens to always, always, without
fail, be something that advances Obama and Democratic policy goals? You would
think that on balance confusion and mistakes would be somewhat even, not 100%
rebounding to the partisan advantage of Democrats, right? If it is really the
case that every mistake errs on the side of Democrat party politics, then we
should revisit the civil service, since most of the employees of the Federal
Government seems to be a card carrying dyed in the wool Democratic party
partisan who interprets their job as advancing the Democratic Party's
"Why is it that ALL "mistakes, inappropriateness and confusion" just
so happens to always, always, without fail, be something that advances Obama and
Democratic policy goals? ""Always, always, without
fail..." Seriously?So you're saying that the disastrous
launch of the ACA website, and the criticism that has earned the Obama
Administration, are actually intended to _promote_ the ACA and The Democrats?Apologies from IRS administrators for how investigations of political
groups (both left and right) seeking tax-exempt status were conducted are in
order, but that's _miles_ from proof of a White House conspiracy. But please answer my main question - should _any_ political fundraising group
seeking to influence elections be allowed to claim tax exempt status and keep
its donors secret?
All you need to know about the IRS is Lois Lerner and the 5th Amendment! The
threat to your freedom doesn't come from ANY fundraising group, it comes
from the IRS! No fund raising group can put you in prison, confiscate your
property or punish you with phony audits but guess who can without and impunity,
oversight or restrictions? The question isn't who will reign in fund
raising groups, its is who will reign in the IRS?
The conservatives still whirling from the Romney landslide are getting more
paranoid.Really? You think that the IRS, acting like some kind of
gestapo, can come to your home, take everything you have, imprison you with
impunity, no oversight or restrictions without you breaking any laws?If I
was Obama I would keep an eye on Hayden Lake though.
Happy Valley. You need to ask Lois Lerner the questions you asked me! But she
isn't talking is she? Since she took the 5th during a congressional hearing
about the IRS abuses. I laughed out loud when I heard Obama say, "What the
IRS did was unacceptable and that I will get to the bottom of this issue".
Been over 6 months and no one has been held accountable and any honest citizen
knows no one ever will be held accountable in the Obama administration. You and
Obama would not like Hayden Lake much, N. Korea is much more what you guys would
like. There the government has no accountability either, just the way you guys