Obama IRS selectively investigates opposition exemption apps

[JimC]

Under a Bush appointee Seth.

Who (to be fair) could have been made pointedly aware which side his bread is buttered...

If there is clear political bias in the selection of groups to be investigated, as CES and Seth are alleging, then heads should roll...

Could have, if...

Like the other economic shoe dropping, I'll wait for some more evidence to come in.

Indeed, I was certainly being deliberately cautious...

[Tyrannical]

Some people even get special treatment

http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/14/irs-o ... s-charity/

Lois Lerner, the senior IRS official at the center of the decision to target tea party groups for burdensome tax scrutiny, signed paperwork granting tax-exempt status to the Barack H. Obama Foundation, a shady charity headed by the president’s half-brother that operated illegally for years.

According to the organization’s filings, Lerner approved the foundation’s tax status within a month of filing, an unprecedented timeline that stands in stark contrast to conservative organizations that have been waiting for more than three years, in some cases, for approval.

[Robert_S]

I wonder though, perhaps the scrutiny of certain kinds of political groups was justified. I mean that in the same way that a cop might be more wary about the guy with the 420 sticker on his car having weed on him than the one with the bible on the dash.

[Coito ergo sum]

I wonder though, perhaps the scrutiny of certain kinds of political groups was justified. I mean that in the same way that a cop might be more wary about the guy with the 420 sticker on his car having weed on him than the one with the bible on the dash.

Which kinds, though? Those that have as their mission "educating people about the constitution?"

And, if a nonprofit was to have as its mission the advocacy of the legalization of marijuana or the benefits of smoking or otherwise ingesting marijuana, it would not be a reason for scrutiny, even though marijuana is illegal under federal law. However, having the words "tea party" or the word "patriot" or having as a mission the "education of citizens about the constitution" were used to single out organizations for special scrutiny.

Look - Obama has already called this "intolerable" and other such verbiage. The IRS has admitted wrongdoing and apologized (they just have not admitted that it was intentionally or political). This isn't an issue of "they might have actually been in the right or justified." That bit is already admitted and taken as given. The issues now are (a) how high up does it go, and (b) what was the full extent of the IRS's actions.

[Coito ergo sum]

Dear scoffers,

The IRS has already apologized and admitted they were targeting conservative groups.

Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/ ... ml?hpid=z1

We weren't scoffing at the story, but at the tedious and endless stridency of your comments.

Oh, you were scoffing at the story: You wrote -- "Strange, the IRS gets a flurry of applications for tax exempt status from groups with political sounding names and tries to verify they're legit. Odd, very odd."

That has nothing to do with the alleged "stridency" of my comments, and everything to do with defending the actions of the IRS. A "flurry of applications"? You made that up. It's not even alleged that there was some heightened level of applications from certain relatedgroups or that they had "political sounding names."

And, "political sounding names?" So what? Having a political sounding name is not a reason to scrutinize 501c4 organizations. They are allowed to conduct political advocacy, not just issue advocacy but also advocacy of specific candidates, as long as their "primary purpose" is social welfare or civics, etc. There is nothing wrong with have a political sounding name and many of them even have the words "Republican" or "Democratic" in their names.

Also, the IRS hasn't claimed that they were scrutinizing a flurry of activity of "political sounding names," and they have said that they used buzzwords like "patriot" (which is not even "political sounding") and things like "we want to educate people on the constitution" as the basis for the heightened scrutiny.

In short, you made a wholly erroneous point - and you did not in the least attack the "stridency" of anything.

This might be another one of those threads that don't interest you, which is fine. You can participate in the discussion, or derail and mock, or simply go to the discussions you enjoy. Your call. Have a nice day.

[Azathoth]

Have they found an unusual concentration of book cooking in such organisations?

[Coito ergo sum]

Have they found an unusual concentration of book cooking in such organisations?

Not that the IRS has said. The IRS has already admitted it was not behaving properly. It would be odd to have stats on the prevalence of book-cooking in organizations that use the word "patriot" in their name.

[Azathoth]

I'm sure it is less than in organisations with church in their name. They should try focusing some attention there.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I'm sure it is less than in organisations with church in their name. They should try focusing some attention there.

Maybe they don't want to go to hell?

[Coito ergo sum]

More evidence of bias -- http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/poli ... s/2158831/

[Seth]

I wonder though, perhaps the scrutiny of certain kinds of political groups was justified. I mean that in the same way that a cop might be more wary about the guy with the 420 sticker on his car having weed on him than the one with the bible on the dash.

Um, in this country, having a 420 sticker on your car is absolutely no basis for suspicion of a crime. None. It's an expression of free speech and no half-way smart cop would ever admit to such "profiling" because the case would be thrown out as all the evidence collected after using an expression of free speech as a pretext for a search is "fruit of the poisonous tree" and would be excluded.

Besides, there is nothing remotely unlawful in the use of "Tea Party" or any of the other terms used. It's not like the groups asking for tax-exempt status were named "Islamic Jihad How to Make Pressure-cooker Bombs to Kill Americans" or anything.

This was clearly a politically motivated scheme to suppress opposition to Obama's reelection. And it's criminal.

[Robert_S]

I wonder though, perhaps the scrutiny of certain kinds of political groups was justified. I mean that in the same way that a cop might be more wary about the guy with the 420 sticker on his car having weed on him than the one with the bible on the dash.

Um, in this country, having a 420 sticker on your car is absolutely no basis for suspicion of a crime. None. It's an expression of free speech and no half-way smart cop would ever admit to such "profiling" because the case would be thrown out as all the evidence collected after using an expression of free speech as a pretext for a search is "fruit of the poisonous tree" and would be excluded.

Besides, there is nothing remotely unlawful in the use of "Tea Party" or any of the other terms used. It's not like the groups asking for tax-exempt status were named "Islamic Jihad How to Make Pressure-cooker Bombs to Kill Americans" or anything.

This was clearly a politically motivated scheme to suppress opposition to Obama's reelection. And it's criminal.

If you have a 420 sticker and your tag lights are out... I'm pretty sure that you'll get a cop paying a little more attention to the scent in the air. And to the redness of the eyes and anything else suspicious.

I have to say I'm a bit cynical and therefore suspicious of any organisation with the word "Patriot" in it or having an excess of red, white and blue on it's promotional material.

[Coito ergo sum]

I wonder though, perhaps the scrutiny of certain kinds of political groups was justified. I mean that in the same way that a cop might be more wary about the guy with the 420 sticker on his car having weed on him than the one with the bible on the dash.

Um, in this country, having a 420 sticker on your car is absolutely no basis for suspicion of a crime. None. It's an expression of free speech and no half-way smart cop would ever admit to such "profiling" because the case would be thrown out as all the evidence collected after using an expression of free speech as a pretext for a search is "fruit of the poisonous tree" and would be excluded.

Besides, there is nothing remotely unlawful in the use of "Tea Party" or any of the other terms used. It's not like the groups asking for tax-exempt status were named "Islamic Jihad How to Make Pressure-cooker Bombs to Kill Americans" or anything.

This was clearly a politically motivated scheme to suppress opposition to Obama's reelection. And it's criminal.

If you have a 420 sticker and your tag lights are out... I'm pretty sure that you'll get a cop paying a little more attention to the scent in the air. And to the redness of the eyes and anything else suspicious.

Well, of course, yes he will, because with a 420 sticker one is saying one is very pro-pot. If he has pulled you over, though, for having a taillight out, and sees that you have red eyes and a waft of pot odor comes out of the car, then he has reasonable suspicion and probable cause outside of the sticker.

I have to say I'm a bit cynical and therefore suspicious of any organisation with the word "Patriot" in it or having an excess of red, white and blue on it's promotional material.

And you are quite entitled to your view on it, and I am sure the reverse is true. However, that doesn't mean that having the word Patriot in the name of an organization has any relation to whether they should receive heightened scrutiny by the IRS.

this whole thing gets worse anyway. It's going to be a mess.

Document: IRS ordered conservative educational group to turn over a list of high school and college students it trained
Federal government demanded a list of everyone a Tennessee organization had ever trained, or planned to train
Linchpins of Liberty mentors high school and college students and teaches them conservative political philosophy, but is not tea-party-linked
'Can you imagine my responsibility to parents if I disclosed the names of their children to the IRS?' asked the group's founder
IRS Inspector General report listed seven questions the agency should never have asked, but this wasn't one of them
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z2TNYJxNhD
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Because the names of students trained by the nonprofit is relevant to whether they ought to have nonprofit tax exempt status .....how?

The IRS was engaged in INFORMATION GATHERING, and the agency was used for political purposes. I rarely agree with Seth, but his statement that this is criminal looks to be very, very likely true. Someone needs to sleuth this out and figure out who was doing what. It is too much to have been some lackey from Cincinnati.

[Coito ergo sum]

“I don’t think anyone truly believes that the president has given us a sufficient answer for America, much less the press,” [Charles] Rangel said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.” “I think this is just the beginning and the whole idea of comparing this with Nixon, I really think is just, it doesn’t make much sense. But the president has to come forward and share why he did not alert the press they were going to do this. He has to tell the Americans, including me: What was this national security question? You just can’t raise the flag and expect to salute it every time without any reason and the same thing applies to the IRS.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/c ... z2TNebNfr4

[Coito ergo sum]

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) demanded that limited government and tea party groups produce Facebook posts, donor lists, and even what books group members were reading, reports Politico.
The IRS’s hardball political tactics were all part of a strategy to relegate conservative groups to a “state of purgatory” that kept their tax-exempt statuses in limbo to neutralize their effectiveness, says Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA).
The strategy worked: over 80% of the conservative groups targeted were delayed more than a year, and some cases were left open for over three years, according to the IRS Inspector General’s report released late Tuesday.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government ... book-Posts


A really good reason for those of you that lean Democrat to be concerned about this sort of nonsense is that one day there will, in all likelihood, be another Republican President. Do you want it to be acceptable for them to do shit like this?