world

Obama calls IRS targeting of conservative groups outrageous

59 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2013.

©2023 GPlusMedia Inc.

59 Comments
Login to comment

Gimmie a break, Obama you had to have known, and are just seething because the media found out about it and are taking the focus away from your own agenda.

-8 ( +5 / -13 )

From money.cnn.com:

"It goes back to 2010, when a "Citizens United" Supreme Court ruling allowed unlimited spending by corporations and labor unions on political campaigns. It also said that political donors should be disclosed. That case prompted a slew of politically-affiliated groups, including Karl Rove's Crossroads GPS, to become charitable organizations under 501(c)4, which allows donors to be kept secret.

How many groups were targeted?

The IRS says that 300 groups were set aside for extra review. About 75 of them had the words "tea party" or "patriot." "

3 ( +3 / -0 )

It clearly went beyond tea party to organizations centered around lower government spending, government debt, taxes, etc. If the IRS was doing it at such a high level there needs to be an investigation into what other federal agencies are inappropriately targeting conservatives and a smaller government agenda.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

What was outrageous was all the tax money they spent creating that ridiculous "Star Trek" video.

As the department of collections for the criminal class, the IRS will naturally target those that intend to decrease their collections.

Just another example of your government at work folks.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

It is outrageous and Un-American regardless any political affiliation. Now, since Obama acknowledged it, let's see the action to follow his words; and it should not play delaying tactic to buy time for watering down the real issue. IRS head is a political appointee by executive branch. It started in 2010 and should not be just a low rank IRS officials who will be the scapegoat at this time. The credibility of this administration is at stake from Benghazi to this abusing of IRS power. Who is actually initiated and responsible for all these? Real men will stand up, are they?

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Anyone who thinks that the Dems and by default Obama didnt know is pretty blind I do believe.

It is also pretty safe to assume that when the Repubs were in office they probably did the very same thing.

It's all a part of doing business in Washington, the one's in power try to use as much as they can, without getting caught, and the other side does their best to knock holes in the opposition.

Hence mistrust from all sides.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Obama is doing the right thing by trumping Republicans on outrage and action.

But this is going to be a double edged sword. At some point it's going to come out that these 501 groups are obviously just a way for political groups to get out of paying taxes. When people learn that the Koch brothers spent tens of millions of dollars in negative political ads they might get wind that the primary purpose isn't "social welfare."

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Obama is more Nixonian than Nixon.

RR

-2 ( +6 / -8 )

The idea that Obama did not know what the democrat activists at the IRS were doing is ludicrious. This is bigger than Watergate; the essential difference is that this administration and party has the massive backing of the press corps.

Anyway, while this is all over the news now, attention is diverted from the even worse scandal in Bengazi, which involved this adminstration covering up four murders. That is truly impeachment level; I suppose that is why they prefer talking about the comparatively minor IRS scandal.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Hint to Obama:

If you wanted to pass the most important priority you've set in your second term as common sense gun control legislation and then go about the country selling it with the assurance that this does not mean in the least that the Government is becoming more tyrannical and abusing its power to win over your skeptics.

This little now revealed innocent little 'oopsie' by your own IRS really ain't gonna help move that along.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

This is bigger than Watergate

But - Isn't Benghazi bigger than Watergate, too? A recent poll found:

41% (of Republicans) say they consider this to be the biggest political scandal in American history.

The same poll found, though, that:

39% of (the above 41%) don't actually know where it is. 10% think it's in Egypt, 9% in Iran, 6% in Cuba, 5% in Syria, 4% in Iraq, and 1% each in North Korea and Liberia with 4% not willing to venture a guess.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2013/05/voters-trust-clinton-over-gop-on-benghazi.html

Of course, these are all productive members of society who would not be expected to pay attention to these details; that is why we live in a representative democracy, where we compensate with money and honor those who are fully informed of these issues. For example, Senator Marco Rubio, who has forthrightly demanded that the IRS commissioner either resign immediately or be sacked. It is hard to argue with this sentiment other than the possibility that the commissioner may have been unaware or even tried to put a stop to this abuse.

Still, one may act in a Japanese manner and say that the head of a department accused of wrongdoing, Commissioner Donald Shulman (who was, incidentally, appointed by Bush), should fall on his sword as a matter of course. The problem is that he has already resigned - last November. Perhaps he could re-resign? There has not been confirmed a new commissioner (and may never be given the hostility Congressional GOP members have shown to any Obama appointee), but if one is confirmed, perhaps he or she could resign in stead.

Or perhaps Rubio could think before he speaks.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

“Targeting groups based on their political views is not only inappropriate but it is intolerable,” Baucus said

If the political view is that tax evasion is proper, then they should get extra scrutiny. This is a no-brainer.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

A number of the people in these groups are politically opposed to the whole tax system. They are libertarian. It's not unreasonable, in my opinion to look at such groups a little more carefully on that basis. I can see why Obama has a political problem saying so though.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

There's some diversion here, too. First, the IG report was due to come out sometime this week. So, to defuse that, it makes sense to wax eloquent on the subject during the slow news weekend.

The real deal is Benghazi, the body count, the slow response, and the blatant lies about some video that virtually nobody has seen. Making that a "non-story" is priceless.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

The latest scandal in an already scandal plagued administration. From the Benghazi cover-up, to the IRS breaking the law, to the administrations blatant power grabs, as they try to circumvent the democratic process, and of course their desperate attempt to stifle both freedom of speech, and freedom of the press, things are looking bad all around for Obama... And yet his solution to government stupidity, incompetence, and lawlessness is to grow the government further. Giving the government more power, and more control over the lives of all its citizens. Its truly mind-boggling.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

It is also pretty safe to assume that when the Repubs were in office they probably did the very same thing.

And the Democrats weren't up in arms under Bush ? This has been going on apparently since 2010 and I seriously doubt they have targeted leftist organizations in the same way or we would hear the screaming from the rooftops right this second. It is also a practice that apparently also extends up the chain. McConnell is now concerned the Department of Health and Human Services has been "contacting businesses skeptical about the implementation of Obamacare and asking them to contribute money to sell the program to the American people which is absolutely improper if not illegal."

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

The same poll found, though, that:

39% of (the above 41%) don't actually know where it is. 10% think it's in Egypt, 9% in Iran, 6% in Cuba, 5% in Syria, 4% in Iraq, and 1% each in North Korea and Liberia with 4% not willing to venture a guess.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2013/05/voters-trust-clinton-over-gop-on-benghazi.html

Of course, these are all productive members of society who would not be expected to pay attention to these details;

I'm a conservative that tends to vote and support republicans and I pay quite a bit of attention to details. For example you used the results of a poll from Public Policy Polling an outfit that wiki tells me:

"it conducts polls only for Democratic campaigns and progressive organizations."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Policy_Polling#cite_note-5

Showing its obvious bias right of the bat.

You also left out a pretty important detail to not bother to include any results from any poll that also shows those who consider themselves democrats are also just as bad with geography and locations. Of course since Americans are as a whole not very good at geography and score low all the time it would behoove you to leave out the comparison and let the smear work for you that it is just republicans are "dumb, dumb, dumb", It's how partisan polling outfits like PPP make their money so they can ask the slanted questions the clients want them to to get the answers they want and then feed out to liberal lap dogs in the media and blog-o-sphere to be able to say "Oh, looky here!!!".

For example like PEW research conducted on news knowledge questions:

Questions on current politics and on geography show particularly wide differences. For example, Republicans are 19 points more likely than Democrats to know that the Republican Party has a majority in just the House of Representatives, and 14 points more likely to know that John Boehner is the speaker of the House. On international questions, Republicans are much more likely to be able to identify Israel on a map (67% vs. 51%), and more likely to know that Greece is the European country experiencing debt problems (71% vs. 54%). Additionally, more Republicans than Democrats could locate Brazil on a map (84% vs. 73%).

http://www.people-press.org/2011/11/07/what-the-public-knows-in-words-and-pictures/

1 ( +3 / -2 )

It is crazy that a political action party (Tea Party, Patriot, or otherwise) should get 501(c)(3) status. I can see some reason to look at these entities a little harder since they are new and 501(c)(3)'s couldn't engage in political activities in the past.

Besides, who is naive enough to believe that the IRS has integrity and applies the law in a non-partisan way.

The only thing good in this news is that both Dems and Repubs are pointing at the IRS instead of each other. Still, the Repubs will use this distraction to further their agenda, and nothing will get done in congress.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Best damn Tweet I've read on this by far:

You know who else has been targeting the Tea Party since 2010? The media

Credit to David Burge (@iowahawkblog)
-3 ( +1 / -4 )

My point, Sail, is that those who bandy about terms such as "Worse than Watergate/Iran-Contra" and "Grounds for impeachment!" either have no idea what they are talking about or are using these incidents for purely partisan reasons that damage the country.

Let's get this straight: The Nixon administration broke the law, knowingly and clearly. The Reagan administration broke the law, knowingly and clearly. To the cries, "At least no one died in Watergate!", I ask: How many died in Nicaragua as the Reagan administration illegally sold arms to Iran and then funneled the profits to illegally fund the Contras? But then, Nicaraguans are foreigners, so they don't count. What the GOP is trying to pin on Obama is not even in the vicinity of the same ballpark.

Worse, the reason the Republicans are doing this is too transparent: They do not want to deal with the problems of the day. They have wanted this administration to fail from day one, and that priority surpasses any loyalty they might have to the country. Unemployment, global warming, infrastructure renewal - They will ignore these, to the nation's detriment, with such bread-and-circuses as "Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi!" It is their behavior that borders on traitorous.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

This is bigger than Watergate;

Clearly, you don't know what Watergate was.

Anyway, while this is all over the news now, attention is diverted from the even worse scandal in Bengazi, which involved this adminstration covering up four murders. That is truly impeachment level; I suppose that is why they prefer talking about the comparatively minor IRS scandal.

Cover up of four murders? You hadn't heard of the murders? It was all over the news months ago. Or is it just that you're having trouble articulating the ludicrous right-wing nutter storyline? I understand. It's not easy.

Anyway, assuming the charge is abuse of authority then, I assume, the charge would rise to Impeachment-level. As yet there's yet to be any evidence shown to support the charge; unless I missed it? So, a bit premature to say it's " bigger than Watergate".

It's amazing to me that the folks who've never recognized the truly criminal, impeachment level conduct of the Bush-Cheney administration in the run up to the invasion of Iraq (and there's actual evidence of that) believe they have any kind of credibility with which to speak with.

Honest folk can agree on the need to investigate and prosecute where appropriate. But what can we expect from Partisan hacks but, well, it's "more Nixonian than Nixon" and 'they're slaughtering children on the White House lawn". It's all part of painting a picture that doesn't exist .

The latest scandal in an already scandal plagued administration.

Sigh You know, repeating a lie over and over doesn't make it true. No matter how hard you wish it to be so. Repeating its a scandal, it's a scandal, it's a scandal, is supposed to make it a "scandal-ridden administration". They aren't. It isn't.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

The IRS says that 300 groups were set aside for extra review. About 75 of them had the words "tea party" or "patriot."

Storm in a teacup: 25% of the groups targeted for extra review have a natural political aversion to paying tax!

from Policing Tax Evasion Could Save Billions, But Republicans Won't Fund Enforcement:

..instead of supporting increased enforcement, the GOP has been trying to cut IRS funding. In March, the House GOP sought to strip $600 million from the IRS budget as part of the continuing budget resolution. IRS commissioner Douglas Shulman told a house subcommittee those cuts would cost the government $4 billion in lost revenue.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/28/irs-budget-cuts-deficit_n_850243.html

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Storm in a teacup: 25% of the groups targeted for extra review have a natural political aversion to paying tax!

So collecting taxes illegally is not overstepping boundaries set in the Constitution by that logic.....The government may “fund” a government effort by begging to the public if it doesn't like what Congress has provided for, which it is already carrying on under Sebelius, with the legitimate threat now of an IRS audit or phone tap if you don't comply. As John Boehner has already said, they better have a good explanation for why they felt it necessary to do this. I can hardly wait to hear what they have to say.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/10/budget-request-denied-sebelius-turns-to-health-executives-to-finance-obamacare/

0 ( +2 / -2 )

My point, Sail, is that those who bandy about terms such as "Worse than Watergate/Iran-Contra" and "Grounds for impeachment!"

But what can we expect from Partisan hacks but, well, it's "more Nixonian than Nixon"

From Article 2 of Nixon's Formal Impeachment Charges:

He has, acting personally and through his subordinates and agents, endeavoured to obtain from the Internal Revenue Service, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, confidential information contained in income tax returns for purposed not authorized by law, and to cause, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, income tax audits or other income tax investigations to be intitiated or conducted in a discriminatory manner.

http://watergate.info/impeachment/articles-of-impeachment

We very well may have seen this movie before, but if I was a liberal I wouldn't sweat it. The days of Woodward and Bernstein doing any sort of dogged reporting that eventually brought down a President are over for his abuses of power as a long as Obama's in office. The narrative reporting will be how the republicans are just politicizing this for their own selfish gain and articles such as get real posted will flourish about how those mean republicans were cutting the IRS budget and a whole lot more blizzards of useless "shining object" information to fog the issue. Media will ensure they performed just like they did after Benghazi happened. They made Romney the bad guy just for even bringing it up then. Same media fellatio thing will happen again here with the republicans made out to be the bad guys in the coverage.

For the record the IRS budget under Obama wanted an increase of 9.4 percent in the IRS budget and requested 1.13 billion dollars for it. Those mean republicans pared the requested increase in the spending by half. Obama's Media will omit these things in the current coverage as usual.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/14/us-usa-budget-irs-idUSTRE71D6MB20110214

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Laguna: My point, Sail, is that those who bandy about terms such as "Worse than Watergate/Iran-Contra" and "Grounds for impeachment!" either have no idea what they are talking about or are using these incidents for purely partisan reasons that damage the country.

Don't forget this gem from Rep. Steve King, Iowa Republican:

“I believe that it’s a lot bigger than Watergate, and if you link Watergate and Iran-Contra together and multiply it times maybe 10 or so, you’re going to get in the zone where Benghazi is,”

Educated people don't talk like that. Partisan people do.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

He has, acting personally and through his subordinates and agents, endeavoured to obtain from the Internal Revenue Service, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, confidential information contained in income tax returns for purposed not authorized by law, and to cause, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, income tax audits or other income tax investigations to be intitiated or conducted in a discriminatory manner.

I see how you boldfaced " or other income tax investigations to be intitiated or conducted in a discriminatory manner" there, Sail. You insinuate that this was instigated by the Obama administration; do you have a shred of evidence that Obama or his administration was involved in this? Even if this were true, the IRS rigorously inspecting requests for prerogatives under the tax laws is not a crime - though, and even Democrats are in full-throated support of this, it is not seemly. There is, though, zero evidence that Obama's administration even knew what was going on, and such evidence is extremely unlikely to be unearthed.

Try to use a little logic, Sail. The Tea Party groups are manna to Obama. They do nothing to draw away moderates; rather, their existence furthers the notion of the GOP as a fringe party. To the guy worrying about meeting his payroll or delivering his goods to market, a bunch of musket-toting, three-cornered hat wearing, Gladstone-flag bearing troglodytes are nothing but annoyance. Still, the logic of the situation will be run to the GOP to its extreme: there will be hearings and accusations and investigations which will uncover nothing but will eat up hours on the clock.

Oh, and regarding cutting the IRS budget: You've no doubt never studied economics, but of all methods for bringing in revenue to the US treasury, the IRS is by far the most cost-effective. Tax evasion costs the treasury many billions which a meager million or two could eliminate; then, the GOP is not good at math when it doesn't suit their purposes.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Educated people don't talk like that. Partisan people do.

Or idiots, SuperLib. The jury is still out on Rep. King.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

The Tea Party groups are manna to Obama. They do nothing to draw away moderates; rather, their existence furthers the notion of the GOP as a fringe party

Like they did in the 2010 mid-terms?

GOP roars back to take U.S. House; Democrats cling to Senate majority

With results still coming in, the extent of the Republican takeover of the 435-member House was still to be determined. But CNN projected that Republicans would win at least 60 more House seats than they currently hold to wipe out the Democratic majority of the past four years.

An energized conservative electorate, fueled by the anti-establishment Tea Party movement that emerged in 2009, helped Republicans to what could be their biggest gain in congressional elections in decades.

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/11/02/election.main/index.html

0 ( +2 / -2 )

If you want to see what a 501 does, check out this one run by Karl Rove.

http://www.crossroadsgps.org/about/

"Presiding over Washington’s dysfunctional political culture is President Obama, who enjoys picking fights and giving speeches, but seems uninterested in simply building consensus around practical solutions."

Go through that website and tell me their primary purpose isn't that of a political group. These guys are tax dodgers, pure and simple. On top of that, they enjoy a perk of not having to disclose their donor list. Anyone can buy their own political 501.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Like they did in the 2010 mid-terms?

No; like they did in 2012. Do you really have that much confidence in 2014? Ask yourself: What has the GOP done for you lately?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

. You insinuate that this was instigated by the Obama administration; do you have a shred of evidence that Obama or his administration was involved in this?

A question that deserves an answer.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Go through that website and tell me their primary purpose isn't that of a political group. These guys are tax dodgers, pure and simple. On top of that, they enjoy a perk of not having to disclose their donor list. Anyone can buy their own political 501.

Isn't Obama's political action group and permanent campaign apparatus Organizing for Action also now registered as a 501 ? Which doesn't necessarily imply the group is pushing the limits of IRS rules simply because after the election it morphed into a non-profit, social welfare organization that is still heavily affiliated with the Democratic party....

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Lizz

Founded after President Obama's re-election, the group seeks to mobilize supporters in favor of Obama's legislative priorities. OFA is registered as a 501(c)(4) organization, which allows it to advocate for legislation but prohibits it from specifically supporting political candidates.[3]

OFA is registered as a 501(c)(4) organization, which allows it to advocate for legislation but prohibits it from specifically supporting political candidates.[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizing_for_Action

Betcha their application to the IRS didn't get flagged and have any of those pesky extra questions asked when that puppy was delivered to em.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

gcbel:

" You insinuate that this was instigated by the Obama administration; do you have a shred of evidence that Obama or his administration was involved in this? "

Oh yes.... the Obama administration is completely unrelated to and ignorant of activist efforts to help the Obama adminstration, and harrass the opponents of the Obama adminstration.

Yeah, right.

Occams razor? Not so much.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Evidence? Eh, not so much. Thought so. Thanks!

0 ( +1 / -1 )

sailwind: Founded after President Obama's re-election, the group seeks to mobilize supporters in favor of Obama's legislative priorities.

Yawn.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57546553/in-record-spending-year-millions-in-election-cash-not-disclosed/

"More than 100 dark money groups have been active, and overall, 80 percent of their spending supported Republicans"

In addition, in 2012, Democrats urged the IRS to investigate whether some of these groups were skirting the laws. The Republicans sent their own letter....asking why the IRS was investigating groups so heavily.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

It was probably common practice for Cheney to order the IRS to target liberal churches, right? Evidence? Well it feels like the truth.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Gimmie a break, Obama you had to have known, and are just seething because the media found out about it and are taking the focus away from your own agenda.

Yeah, he HAD to have known because the President of the United States is intimately familiar with what EVERY department of the government is doing at ANY time. (rolls eyes) /sarcasm

0 ( +0 / -0 )

it was Obama himself that said he was lazy back in 2011 and too bad he's not mad enough over Benghazi, IRS, etc. to fire some people after allegedly discovering the scandal on TV on Friday night and cooling his heels until the sole question allowed during his joint press conference with British Prime Minister David Cameron. Contrast this when topics like gays in sports or rap music are broached that literally have him running back to the mic to answer.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Lizz: it was Obama himself that said he was lazy back in 2011 and too bad he's not mad enough over Benghazi, IRS, etc. to fire some people after allegedly discovering the scandal on TV on Friday night and cooling his heels until the sole question

I'm going to need evidence that doesn't include your personal dislike for the man.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Guys, lets consider this rationally for a few minutes...

IRS scandal. Is Obama to blame? Realistically, no. The department was being run by a former Bush appointee. Those who violated the law, doubtless acted on Obamas behalf, and without the IRS heads knowledge. Obama can't be blamed for this.

Benghazi - Does Obama deserve the blame for the 4 deaths? Probably not. Again he is not responsible for managing the security at all these far flung consulates. The State Department is, and this probably is going to hit Clinton, as it was something she should have been aware of. He could have authorized action, but if his people were telling him, there was nothing they could do...

AP Phone tapping. - Obama to blame? Heh, idiotic assertion. Of course not. Someone in the justice department totally, and completely screwed up. Does it rise to the White House? Probably, as its hard to imagine someone in the white house not being aware of this, but Obama personally? Not a chance.

So what does all this mean? Is Obama to blame for any of this? No, not personally. And thats the difference between him and Nixon. What it does, is suggest that Obama is incompetent. That he has picked people, so bad as to make him appear as if he can do nothing right.

I left one thing out... The continued Benghazi cover-up. Obama is going to have to take the blame for this. He was involved in it. He went around the country, deliberately making false statements, alleging that Benghazi happened, not because his policies were idiotic, but because of some dumb video. He had to know, that this was not the case. Additionally, his administrations continued threats against whistleblowers, has prevented survivors of Benghazi from coming forward. While I have a hard time believing he personally is involved in threatening whistleblowers, his administration is. Specifically, when it comes down to it, people in the white house, are engaged in it. And of course, even just a few days ago, Jay Carney blatantly, and demonstrably lied, presenting the Presidents spin.

Having said this though, lying to the American people, is not an impeachable offense. Nothing I see, is an impeachable offense. Vile and contemptible yes. Demonstrating poor judgement and incompetence, again yes, but we've had incompetents and idiots in the Presidency before. Obama isn't the first, and he won't be the last.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

What Obama means is that getting caught and actaully being blamed for his thuggish and Nixonian behaviour is outrageous

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Nessie:

If the political view is that tax evasion is proper, then they should get extra scrutiny. This is a no-brainer.

A popular talking point I've seen in the comments section of several news sites. However, none of the people repeating this talking point can point to where any of these groups promote tax evasion as "proper". Can you?

And they didn't just receive "extra scrutiny". Their applications were blocked to prevent them from fundraising during the election. While "progressive" groups were fast-tracked through the process. It was a blatantly partisan attempt to affect the presidential election.

If you want to target those with a penchant for tax evasion, how about several members of Obama's administration?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

blendover:

A number of the people in these groups are politically opposed to the whole tax system. They are libertarian. It's not unreasonable, in my opinion to look at such groups a little more carefully on that basis. I can see why Obama has a political problem saying so though.

They weren't just looked at "a little more carefully". Their applications were blocked to prevent them from fundraising during the election. While "progressive" groups were fast-tracked through the process. It was a blatantly partisan attempt to affect the presidential election.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SuperLib:

Don't forget this gem from Rep. Steve King, Iowa Republican: "I believe that it's a lot bigger than Watergate, and if you link Watergate and Iran-Contra together and multiply it times maybe 10 or so, you're going to get in the zone where Benghazi is," Educated people don't talk like that. Partisan people do.

Tell me Mr. Educated, how many Americans died from Iran-Contra? How many U.S. ambassadors?

If you want to see what a 501 does, check out this one run by Karl Rove.

You should see how MediaMatters operates.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Laguna:

You insinuate that this was instigated by the Obama administration; do you have a shred of evidence that Obama or his administration was involved in this? ... There is, though, zero evidence that Obama's administration even knew what was going on, and such evidence is extremely unlikely to be unearthed.

I wouldn't say "zero evidence": http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324767004578487332636180800.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

The Tea Party groups are manna to Obama.

They certainly weren't during the 2010 congressional elections. Ironically, one of the defense strategies used by Obama's apologists - that the federal government is too vast for the president to control (Axelrod) - actually supports the Tea Party's case.

To the guy worrying about meeting his payroll or delivering his goods to market, a bunch of musket-toting, three-cornered hat wearing, Gladstone-flag bearing troglodytes are nothing but annoyance.

To the guy worrying about meeting his payroll or delivering his goods to market, Obamacare is much more than an annoyance. It's a threat to the very survivability of his business.

No; like they did in 2012.

Are you not paying attention to this scandal? The IRS purposely delayed right-of-center groups, hindering their fundraising abilities during the 2012 election, while fast-tracking left-of-center groups.

Ask yourself: What has the GOP done for you lately?

What a selfish, short-sighted, and narcissistic way to vote. And not unexpected of Leftists.

But to answer your question: As usual, quite a bit, but not enough to offset the damage done by Democrats.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sailwind:

Betcha their application to the IRS didn't get flagged and have any of those pesky extra questions asked when that puppy was delivered to em.

I would bet the next round at the Shibuya Starbucks they were fast-tracked.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Molenir:

Is Obama to blame?

We once had a president who had a sign on his desk reading "The buck stops here." Now we have a president, a chief executive, who accepts no accountability for the actions of the people in his administration or cabinet. But he'll take credit for killing ObL, withdrawing the troops from Iraq (according to the guidelines set by his predecessor), and stopping the BP oil spill (before that attempt failed, then he was looking for "whose ___ to kick"). The only buck that stops with Obama is the campaign fundraising buck.

Those who violated the law, doubtless acted on Obamas behalf, and without the IRS heads knowledge.

Erm... http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/11/irs-officials-knew-of-agents-tea-party-targeting-in-2011/

So what does all this mean? Is Obama to blame for any of this? No, not personally. And thats the difference between him and Nixon. What it does, is suggest that Obama is incompetent. That he has picked people, so bad as to make him appear as if he can do nothing right.

Gee, I seem to remember Republicans, Libertarians and even moderates questioning Obama's lack of executive experience, or lack of any experience whatsoever. In fact, so did some Democrats. At least those supporting Clinton during the primaries. Remember the "3am phone call" ad? And now Obama has proved all of those critics right. He is completely, utterly, thoroughly incapable as an executive. Even after more than four years on the job.

This also means that Democrats, by their nature, are petty, partisan tyrants who will abuse any power entrusted to them.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

President Barack Obama on Monday called the targeting of conservative groups by U.S. tax officials "outrageous" and said that any Internal Revenue Service employees involved should "be held fully accountable."

"I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here." - Captain Renault, Casablanca.

For those who are determined to continue defending Obama and/or Leftist political tactics, make sure you know what you are defending. This wasn't just "a little extra scrutiny", or "an audit". Here are some examples, with sources...

IRS asked pro-life groups about the content of their prayers:

http://washingtonexaminer.com/congressman-irs-asked-pro-life-group-about-the-content-of-their-prayers/article/2529924

The Internal Revenue Service asked tea party groups to see donor rolls. It asked for printouts of Facebook posts. And it asked what books people were reading.

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=DA016CBA-5054-4D41-BC1A-3AFE4A86CED4

The Obama administration apparently accessed tax information, ala Nixon, and used it in a public speech targeting that group:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/05/obamas-abuse-of-the-irs-this-isnt-the-first-time.php

The IRS didn't just harass groups, but also individuals. Please take a few minutes to read these, to see the depth of abuse people received for exercising their First Amendment rights:

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/05/13/am-face-team-obama-irs-attacks/?intcmp=obnetwork

http://www.talkers.com/2013/05/14/irs-scandal-time-for-talk-show-hosts-to-come-forward/

Which is why they wanted donor lists, so they could target individuals and intimidate them from donating to political campaigns. Some of these groups that were asked for donor/member lists were college groups and high school groups. What kind of tyrant targets high school kids? Do y'all really want to continue defending the behavior of your political/ideological comrades? Really?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Republicans probably do this sort of thing too." - Various

According to Wikipedia, this sort of thing goes all the way back to FDR. But the only Republican on the list is the quite moderate Richard M. Nixon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Internal_Revenue_Service_political_profiling_controversies

0 ( +0 / -0 )

But wait, there's more...

http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/15/irs-sued-for-improperly-seizing-the-medical-records-of-10-million-americans/

0 ( +0 / -0 )

A number of the people in these groups are politically opposed to the whole tax system. They are libertarian. It's not unreasonable, in my opinion to look at such groups a little more carefully on that basis.

That's probably the same wrongheaded rationale that the Obama's Administration used to go after it's political opponents. Rationalizing the criminal use of the IRS to attack political opponents. The irony of using the federal government's power to intimidate and blunt the political activities of people that believe too much power in the hands of government is dangerous is surely not lost on anyone.

My guess is that Liberals support the use of government to do what "they" believe is in best interests of everyone else. Obama has feigned outrage but he is likely only outraged by the fact that the tactic has been uncovered.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

What happened to the usual gang of "progressive" defenders? Why aren't they here to valiantly circle their wagon-loads of talking points and defend Obama and the Salinsky-esque world for which he organizes?

Perhaps they can finally see the writing on the wall. Perhaps they've finally found something they can't defend him on (even if the bulk of their "defense" has largely consisted of attacking conservatives and their groups). Perhaps they finally realize that Obama's 2008 promises of transparency and reform were lies, and the Chicago Democrat is just as corrupt as all the Chicago Democrats who came before him.

Small wonder, as with each passing news cycle, it just keeps looking worse for the Obama administration. And Obama himself.

http://spectator.org/archives/2013/05/20/obama-and-the-irs-the-smoking

0 ( +0 / -0 )

IRS asked pro-life groups about the content of their prayers:

And we know this actually happened how? From the link, it appears to be second-hand hearsay. You state it above as though it were a proven fact. (Isn't that dishonest in itself?)

The Obama administration apparently...

Apparently?

But the only Republican on the list is the quite moderate Richard M. Nixon.

And the moderate Nixon had henchmen like Donald Segretti who had a special name for what his boys did. Those engaged in touting Nixon's moderation are engaging in it too -- which must be all too natural for them.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Why aren't they here to valiantly circle their wagon-loads of talking points and defend Obama and the Salinsky-esque world for which he organizes?

It's clear you dress yourself up for Segretti's world. The rest of us smell the rat.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

And we know this actually happened how? From the link, it appears to be second-hand hearsay. You state it above as though it were a proven fact. (Isn't that dishonest in itself?)

Obviously, you didn't read the report linked in the article. The very first sentence: "Today, the Thomas More Society offered over 150 pages of analysis and evidence to the House Ways and Means Committee about repeated IRS harassment of pro-life organizations."

Apparently?

I'm trying to be nice here. Do you have another (rational) explanation? Unless Goolsbee was lying when "he suggested that he had access to confidential IRS data", there isn't one.

And the moderate Nixon had henchmen like Donald Segretti who had a special name for what his boys did. Those engaged in touting Nixon's moderation are engaging in it too -- which must be all too natural for them.

Says the Leftist defending his fellow Leftists at the IRS who have spent the past few years harassing and intimidating right-wing groups and donors. Nixon was a single presidency that occurred before you were born. This thuggish behavior has been part of Leftists since the 1930's.

It's clear you dress yourself up for Segretti's world. The rest of us smell the rat.

Then try proving the evidence presented wrong. Go ahead. I'll wait.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obviously, you didn't read the report linked in the article. The very first sentence: "Today, the Thomas More Society

I don't swallow what the "Thomas More Society" is selling hook, line and sinker as some have done. One narrow issue drives their efforts, and the world has seen how the zealots among them will lie and murder if it means achieving "success" in their efforts.

Nixon was a single presidency...

He has been described as a "moderate" by some, and yet he hired henchmen like Liddy and Segretti -- men with no ethical scruples or decency whatsoever. The nation saw many of the same types operating under Reagan. (The administration with the greatest number of folks indicted and convicted of crimes.)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I don't swallow what the "Thomas More Society" is selling hook, line and sinker as some have done.

No, you swallow everything the Obama administration and his faithful sycophants in the media sell, hook, line and sinker. And that's making you look more foolish with every news cycle. To the point where you can no longer defend the actions of his administration, but merely make feeble attempts to attack his political opposition.

One narrow issue drives their efforts, and the world has seen how the zealots among them will lie and murder if it means achieving "success" in their efforts.

Someone from the Thomas More Society has committed murder to further their agenda? Proof, please. Quite the opposite, actually. Murder attempts have been made on pro-life supporters, and the Thomas More Society, as a practicing law firm, has represented them in court. Oh, and did you see where an abortion provider (Gosnell) was recently convicted of murder? I bet you didn't, since your tolerance for news sources is very narrow and shallow.

He has been described as a "moderate" by some, and yet he hired henchmen like Liddy and Segretti -- men with no ethical scruples or decency whatsoever.

And Obama has repeated his mistake. But then, when all you have to pick from are Leftists, what choice do you really have?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Obama calls IRS targeting of conservative groups outrageous

One could easily imagine that Obama would also call the targeting of conservative groups during the last election cycle as very helpful to his re-election campaign. Not to mention the billions of dollars worth of free cell phones.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites