IRS targeted conservatives in 2012

[Serapis Bey]

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/347945/irs-targeted-conservatives-2012?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

At the risk of sounding like a broken record -- can you imagine if it were Democrats the IRS flagged for audits? Can you imagine the OUTRAGE and CONSTANT editorials about the damnable Republicans who hold power in this country? The public discourse would be FLOODED with opinion pieces and neverending Facebook memes.

In this case, however, it will simply be swept down the memory hole and die a quite death.

And according to Kacy, it well should be, since we are talking about Tea Party folks here, and since the Tea Partiers represent a threat to Freedom with their advocacy of Christian Theocracy, it is only just that a government devoted to religious freedom do all they can to thwart such subversive activity.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here's a video with Mark Levin and Neil Cavuto discussing the IRS harassment Levin received and his legal strategy that probably forced the IRS to make a public apology.

He's also pissed because the old boy Republican party kinda looked the other way a year ago when this abuse first started coming to light.

Sorry, the video doesn't embed, so you have to go to the link:

Mark Levin On IRS Scandal: "Where Were The Republicans In The House A Year Ago?"

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I already posted on this the other day on the gun control thread, but here is more appropriate:

Here's what the start of transition to a dictatorship looks like for a place like America:

AP EXCLUSIVE: IRS KNEW TEA PARTY TARGETED IN 2011
by Stephen Ohlemacher
Associated Press
May 11, 2013

From the article:

Senior Internal Revenue Service officials knew agents were targeting tea party groups as early as 2011, according to a draft of an inspector general's report obtained by The Associated Press that seemingly contradicts public statements by the IRS commissioner.

The IRS apologized Friday for what it acknowledged was "inappropriate" targeting of conservative political groups during the 2012 election to see if they were violating their tax-exempt status. The agency blamed low-level employees, saying no high-level officials were aware.

and

IRS Inquisition Update
By Kevin Williamson
May 11, 2013

From the article:

Along with targeting tea-party groups, the IRS may also have given extra-special attention to the tax-exempt status of some Jewish groups for political reasons.

Jews and Tea Party, huh?

Nice.

This was to ensure Obama got reelected. This was a corruption of the election process...

As gravy, here is another tidbit I posted there. It might not be directly associated to the IRS scandal, but it certainly shows why this thing got no air time over the last year:

And here's how you control the media so no one gets any traction. At this point, it doesn't matter if the Second Amendment gets infringed. People will forget about it over time and become good little cattle.

Presidents of ABC and CBS News Have Siblings Working at White House With Ties to Benghazi
By Noel Sheppard
May 11, 2013
Newsbusters

From the article:

"CBS News President David Rhodes and ABC News President Ben Sherwood, both of them have siblings that not only work at the White House, that not only work for President Obama, but they work at the NSC on foreign policy issues directly related to Benghazi."

So stated political consultant and media commentator Richard Grenell on Saturday's Fox News Watch

. . .

For the record, Ben Sherwood's sister, Dr. Elizabeth Sherwood-Randall, is the Special Assistant to Barack Obama.

Virginia Moseley's husband, Tom Nides, is the Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources.

As for David Rhodes' brother Ben, he is Obama's Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communication.

. . .

Consider, too, that CBS News executives possibly including Rhodes have allegedly come down on their own investigative reporter Sharyl Attkisson for "wading dangerously close to advocacy on" Benghazi.

This looks like as good a thread as any to post the unfolding IRS scandal stuff on.

btw - Obama said if this is true, it's outrageous and he has no patience for it and those who did it will be held fully accountable.

Man, I'm glad that's out of the way. Boy do I feel better.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here's Jon Stewart actually trashing Obama's administration about these scandals:

 

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Indecision Political Humor,The Daily Show on Facebook

 

 

Michael

[Robert Baratheon]

MSK, don't fall into the Daily Show progressive mind-trap. Stewart criticized the administration, but ONLY because the scandal gave ammo to conservative groups.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

RB,

So?

It was still funny. And spot on.

I have no idea what kind of "progressive mind-trap" I could possibly fall into, especially after all I have written for several years now--especially about Progressives, but I tend not to see the world in fringe dichotomy glasses as much as I can muster.

That same form of bipolar thinking distortion is what I have been ragging Kacy about, except on the other end.

Michael

[Robert Baratheon]

My statement was made partially in jest, but your use of the word "actually" implied that Stewart was making a principled criticism of the Obama administration. I watched the segment, and the opposite is true. Stewart's criticism of the scandal is solely on the basis of giving *those crazies* in the Tea Party movement something to make hay over, not for the misconduct itself. I thought it was worth mentioning since there are some here who believe the Daily show is equal opportunity in its mockery.

[Brant Gaede]

Everybody knows--no?--that Jon Stewart is a liberal. Although my Mother started a "progressive" pre-school for me so I would get my sensitive soul "socialized," it didn't work. I have no idea what a "progressive mind-trap" is, but I do know anger, envy, jealousy and a lot of other crap galore, which I'm happy and generously willing to share on OL.

--Brant

know your expertise

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Everybody knows--no?--that Jon Stewart is a liberal.

Brant,

Actually no.

We need someone to educate us here on OL.

Thank goodness we have found a candidate.

Michael

[KacyRay]

I hope everyone realizes that SB does not speak for me, and that he has no authority to speak on what I believe or what position I would take on anything.

Jon Stewart doesn't really make his liberal leanings a secret, but he does dispute the idea that the MSM has a bias toward liberalism. He argues that the MSM has a bias toward sensationalism. I suspect he would argue that his show is not the liberal propaganda arm a lot of folks believe it is, but rather a show that lampoons the MSM and political pundits, with a focus on politics in general.

Imagine a show that followed that format exactly. Let's assume that the show was intended to lampoon politics, politicians, and political pundits (including the media representation of politics) without any favoritism toward any side of the political spectrum. Just imagine it as a hypothetical.

Now, imagine that the show allocates its lampooning proportionately to the degree that each story merits. For each time a Republican says or does something ridiculous or hypocritical, the show lampoons them. Same for Democrats. Same for Independents. Same for Libertarians, Etc.

Now, try to imagine the response to such a show by whichever side incurs the majority of the lampooning.

I suspect this largely accounts for the "liberal slant" coming from the Daily Show.

Oh, I know... I must be in the progressive mind trap in order to even question the idea that Jon Jew Stewart isn't a pawn in the liberal propaganda machine. But I found his case compelling - that the media does have a bias toward sensationalism. In fact, I think recent stories confirm this fact.

And those who insist that the MSM is nothing more than a left wing propaganda arm do themselves no favors. When a story that supports the left wing narrative appears, it's because the MSM is a left-wing propaganda machine! When a story comes out that supports the right-wing narrative, it's because the story was just too big and the SMS could not escape. It's never because the story was just a money maker for the media - the exact type of story they thrive on in order to sell papers.

Nope... always a hidden agenda.

[KacyRay]

RB,

So?

It was still funny. And spot on.

I have no idea what kind of "progressive mind-trap" I could possibly fall into, especially after all I have written for several years now--especially about Progressives, but I tend not to see the world in fringe dichotomy glasses as much as I can muster.

That same form of bipolar thinking distortion is what I have been ragging Kacy about, except on the other end.

Michael

Michael,

I suspect you're going to start seeing with increasing clarity what I've been telling you about... SB embodies the sort of black and white thinking you're speaking of. There should be no doubt about that at this point.

If I sounded like I do before, it's only because I was speaking in terms I've grown accustomed to speaking in to others. But it should be very clear at this point that I do not fit into any mold. And I was quick to capitulate your point when you made it.

I reject this dichotomy, as surely as you do, and for all the same reasons you articulated.

[Robert Baratheon]

Kacy, I agree with you (and possibly Stewart) that the larger media trend is toward sensationalism. They want viewers of any political persuasion. However, every poll and study I've ever seen on the subject has identified most journalists as liberal Democrats. Many in the media have admitted this openly, including Ira Glass of NPR (although he still claims neutral NPR reporting, which as a listener, I find absolutely laughable). So on its face, it's not ridiculous to suggest they might generally favor, say, President Obama over Mitt Romney/John McCain. But I'm not going to claim that there is some overarching conspiracy in the media to wipe out or under-report stories that support a conservative agenda.

Stewart is a much more clear-cut case. Besides being a self-described "socialist," he openly supports President Obama and universal health care on the air every chance he gets. He incessantly blasts conservative politicians and social movements, and his criticisms of liberal Democrats, such as the President, are for making non-ideological missteps or not doing enough to advance their shared agenda. His "Rally to Restore Sanity" was essentially a giant jab at the Tea Party movement and *the crazies* who resist gun control, etc. Stewart was implicitly saying positions like universal healthcare are "moderate" positions, while any system that "lets people die in the streets" (not a direct quote, but you will frequently hear similar rhetoric on Stewart's program) is "extremism" - a textbook case of Alinsky-style radicalization of the opposition. He accuses other journalists (almost exclusively conservative/libertarian) of failing to fairly inform the public while he deflects all criticism of himself on the basis that he is a "comedian" and not a reporter(even though his show is functionally indistinguishable from many of the Fox News entertainment-style programs). It's an unfair double standard of conduct.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I suspect you're going to start seeing with increasing clarity what I've been telling you about... SB embodies the sort of black and white thinking you're speaking of.

Kacy,

You guys have a history before showing up here and it looks like the sides have gotten entrenched. I'm not part of that.

But the essence interests me a lot.

There is an exercise people sometimes do in self-help lectures. They will call a member from the audience up to the stage and ask them to put their hands out as if pushing against a wall. Then the presenter will put his own hands against those of the audience member. He will suddenly push and the automatic reaction of the audience member is to push back. This is one way he shows that pushing back when pushed is innate in humans.

(The idea in that context is usually to show why people love to buy, but hate being sold to. But this example is also very good to illustrate the present point.)

I believe this happens mentally and this is one of the reasons polarities become so entrenched over time. People are pushing and pushing back. And the push game keeps going until rationality goes out the window and rationalization comes in. It's no longer the idea, it's who can push the hardest and win.

I just now came up with a small formula-like expression that gives a big-ass "why" I manage to not get sucked into bipolar fights between good people. (Well, sometimes I do, but I usually end up backing out.)

Fight propaganda with propaganda = power

Reject propaganda with analysis = enlightened individual

Collective thinking always leads to power at the end. Independent thinking always leads to empowerment of the individuals's mind.

I think you see that and hunger for it.

If a person wants power (or power for his group), it's OK for him to distort his own facts and those of the other--both through commission and omission. The goal is to sway people into following him.

If he wants to encourage independent thinking, it's NEVER OK to distort his own facts, nor the facts of the other, except as maybe an initial excess of rhetoric and enthusiasm. But in that case, he corrects it as soon as he detects it.

I have studied marketing, persuasion and propaganda and, frankly, I feel like I am just at the beginning. But this allows me to detect propaganda when I see it. So I try not to respond with propaganda, but instead, analysis. One of the best ways to neutralize the toxic load in a propaganda message is to simply expose it in colorful and entertaining manners.

When people see it, they call BS and the covert effect gets greatly diluted. In doing that, we don't need to manipulate people. We just need to attract their attention and not bore them as we make our case.

At advanced levels, this gets more complicated, but my approach is basically that.

It's very difficult to fix a problem if you don't acknowledge it. A heated bipolar back-and-forth using fringe stereotypes nudges and shoves people into not seeing the true problem.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/347945/irs-targeted-conservatives-2012?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

At the risk of sounding like a broken record -- can you imagine if it were Democrats the IRS flagged for audits? Can you imagine the OUTRAGE and CONSTANT editorials about the damnable Republicans who hold power in this country? The public discourse would be FLOODED with opinion pieces and neverending Facebook memes.

In this case, however, it will simply be swept down the memory hole and die a quite death.

And according to Kacy, it well should be, since we are talking about Tea Party folks here, and since the Tea Partiers represent a threat to Freedom with their advocacy of Christian Theocracy, it is only just that a government devoted to religious freedom do all they can to thwart such subversive activity.

Kacy does deserve the respect here of being actually cited and quoted.

--Brant

then, let him have it!

"Hit him again! The son-of-a-bitch is from New Jersey!" (1930s' labor strife)

[Brant Gaede]

The IRS has been targeting people for political reasons for a long time. Durk Pearson got three years of audits for not shutting up about the FDA. Pearson beat the FDA into the ground, but not the IRS. Here's how it must work: the FDA guy calls his buddy the IRS guy who unleashes the hounds of audit hell. Pearson was warned unofficially to shut up or he'd get it good and hard. He didn't and they did. He must have ben vulnerable because of extremely complicated tax returns given his myriad business interests. That way the nit-picking can go on seemingly forever.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I keep wondering why all three scandals are hitting at the same time.

Benghazi, the IRS targeting conservatives and pro-Israel Jews, and the secret search of AP phone records.

1. Benghazi.

I lean toward believing the speculation that the American government was running guns to the Syrian rebels in Benghazi. Here are a couple of stories about those who the USA is probably arming:

GRUESOME VIDEO REPORTEDLY SHOWS SYRIAN REBELS EXECUTING CAPTURED TROOPS: ‘THESE ARE ASSAD’S DOGS’

REPORT: SYRIAN REBELS BEHEAD CHRISTIAN MAN AND FEED HIS BODY TO DOGS

Glenn mentioned this morning a video where a Syrian rebel cut a man's chest open, cracked his rib-cage, cut his heart out and started eating it on camera, but I can't find the story. His staff is probably double-checking the authenticity.

Glenn says that there are no good guys in the Syrian mess, but the USA has taken sides. I agree. Obama has gotten in bed with some really nasty people over there.

Regardless, there are ways the Obama administration could have dealt with this scandal except by digging down in a lie and this gun-running part would probably not be brought up except by the fringe. Now it's going mainstream and I believe (right now, at least) that the press and the right will keep digging and will eventually find hard evidence.

2. The IRS targeting conservatives and pro-Israel Jews.

It doesn't really matter at this point whether this scandal will officially hit Obama. The PR disaster already has and he is losing his support in massive waves with the moderates and moderate left. Nobody trusts him anymore. Even Rachel Maddow has been talking bad about this.

There is a homily that trust is hard to gain, easy to lose, and once lost near impossible to regain. I believe Obama is about to learn that lesson the hard way with the American public.

3. The secret search of AP phone records.

This one has me chuckling. Obama did everything by the book in this search, so technically he is legal. However, his normal operating method of stealth and public deception only works in the press if the press thinks it is immune from the tactic. Now it has learned that it is not, that it is a target itself, and it has fed the beast that now wants to eat it.

It's funny to watch all the flip-flopping. I believe Obama lost the press big-time with this move and I doubt his spin-machine will be able to recover the lost trust. He's going to have to do some big-time bribing, but I bet anything the press is going to be all over such efforts, even if it means eating one of their own.

4. The question.

Why all this at the same time? Every one of these scandals was available months ago. I don't believe it was just the election.

I'm only speculating right now, but I imagine Obama and his staff made some big-ass promises before the election to keep the lid down on this stuff and get him reelected. But now that he has been in office a few months, the political IOU holders got fed up with the run-around. So they are showing him what happens when they are not taken seriously.

And I further speculate there is a hell of a lot more waiting in the wings.

The conservatives basically want to remove Obama, and get him well-removed, but I fear the left, especially the hard left, will eventually want to tear his chest open and eat his heart (metaphorically speaking, of course).

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here is one of the best chewings out of the IRS people Obama put out to dry I have seen so far in the IRS hearings:

 

 

The Congressman has one hell of a great name, too: Mike Kelly.

 

 

Michael

[Selene]

Folks:

Were any of these alleged criminals put under oath?

When is the woman in charge of the operation, who is now been promoted and will be in charge of the IRS enforcement division of the Affordable Care Act?

A...

[Mikee]

The Chicago Way.

"

And who swings the codes and regulations at those who'd open their mouths? A government worker. That government worker owes his or her job to the political boss. And that boss has a boss.

The worker doesn't have to be told. The worker wants a promotion. If an irritant rises, it is erased. The hack gets a promotion. This is government.

So everybody kept their mouths shut, and Chicago was hailed by national political reporters as the city that works.

"

[moralist]

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/347945/irs-targeted-conservatives-2012?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

At the risk of sounding like a broken record -- can you imagine if it were Democrats the IRS flagged for audits? Can you imagine the OUTRAGE and CONSTANT editorials about the damnable Republicans who hold power in this country? The public discourse would be FLOODED with opinion pieces and neverending Facebook memes.

In this case, however, it will simply be swept down the memory hole and die a quite death.

And according to Kacy, it well should be, since we are talking about Tea Party folks here, and since the Tea Partiers represent a threat to Freedom with their advocacy of Christian Theocracy, it is only just that a government devoted to religious freedom do all they can to thwart such subversive activity.

I see this from another viewpoint, even though our local Tea Party Patriots was one of the groups specifically targeted by the government. One of our founding members even went to Washington during the hearings. My advise at the time was not to pursue the government granted entitlement of non profit tax exempt status, so as to continue to enjoy the freedom to do whatever we wanted. When the board voted on this matter, I was a minority of the only no vote.

If a group purports to promote small Constitutionally limited government, fiscal responsibility, and free capitalist private sector markets, then it should operate on the very same principles it champions, by becoming a private sector Capitalist business instead of groveling to the government to be given an entitled status.

It's downright demeaning to freely choose to stick your own neck into the government's noose and then complain about rope burns.

Greg

[syrakusos]

Tax-exempt status is accorded specifically to organizations that are not engaged in political opinion.

Period.

[moralist]

Tax-exempt status is accorded specifically to organizations that are not engaged in political opinion.

Period.

It's a shame that fantasy does not apply to moveon.org.

"MoveOn.org Civic Action is a 501©(4) organization which primarily focuses on nonpartisan education and advocacy on important national issues. MoveOn.org Political Action is a federal political committee which primarily helps members elect candidates who reflect our values through a variety of activities aimed at influencing the outcome of the next election."

"MoveOn.org Political Action and MoveOn.org Civic Action are separate organizations."

[syrakusos]

Feel free to file a complaint if you care.

[moralist]

Feel free to file a complaint if you care.

Thanks for the suggestion Michael, but impotent political outrage is not my thing. I just noted the humorous gap between your statement and reality. The kind of people who deal with moveon.org get exactly what they deserve because it matches the values by which they live, and I'm content with that. This is because I look for my own practical personal solutions which allow me to enjoy my freedom regardless of what others choose to do.

[Selene]

Tax-exempt status is accorded specifically to organizations that are not engaged in political opinion.

Period.

Mike...

You need to come out of that bunker occasionally....

“When government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought,” Justice Kennedy wrote. “This is unlawful. The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves.”

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), is a US constitutional law case, in which the United States Supreme Court held that the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting political independent expenditures by corporations, associations, or labor unions. The conservative lobbying group Citizens United wanted to air a film critical of Hillary Clinton and to advertise the film during television broadcasts in apparent violation of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (commonly known as the McCain–Feingold Act or "BCRA").^[2] In a 5–4 decision, the Court held that portions of BCRA §203 violated the First Amendment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission