IRS: We Targeted Conservative, Tea Party Groups With Extra Scrutiny — 'Mistakes Were Made'

new revelations: targeting was known all the way to the top of the IRS....at least, and as far back as 2011
from AP:

bigstory.ap.org...

Ok, which part of 'U.S. Government" was everyone sleeping through on this one? (Me included), Don't you know that we have 3 separate branches of feral government so they can conspire with each other so they can do whatever the hell the please? Did anyone actually fall for that whole checks and balances lie 'they' tried spreading in 3rd Grade? What's really disgusting about the feral government is how EASY they are getting caught these days! And the whole "My Bad' fail? 50 Years of public education rears it's ugly head, again !

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by beezzer

 

Dear beezzer,

You forgot to mention that conservatives are all evil and greedy and drink jello shots off the stomachs of Fox News babes and worship Sarah Palin at the altar of Darth Cheney.

That's a campaign platform I can get behind. You've got a winner there. Now show me a 60 second commercial of all that happening, and I'm yours for life.

And what do the liberals have? Eating arugula off the stomachs of Nancy Pelosi, Barbra Boxer, Helen Thomas, and Maxine Waters, and worshipping Hillary at the altar of Al Gore.

Thanks for the mental images.

With respect,
Charles1952

Does that mean I can file for harrassment after all but 30 bucks of
my 2011 has been expropriated without a formal assessment? NOT.
These guys know full well we're unable to fork over the change (after
bleeding us out like Christopher Lee with full contact lenses.. yes I'm
THAT old) to pursue appropriate recourse. The good part is soon I'll be
following directly in Aleksander's mukluks... homeless and FREE.
Ya can't bleed a beet, just make blackwater. I couldn't help myself...

Off topic but no less urgent:
Good Glob Charles! What a counterattack on the temporal lobes.
This thread is beginning to diverge sufficiently to resemble an "R" rated
"Retirement Village of the Damned"

I always liked her tough questions, long before PC get her in trouble...
and her even tougher skin. BUT for the latter of the geriatric courtesans,
can't help but wonder if Helen T. indeed HAS a stomach. EEEeeeuuuu.

The least you could have done is have Valerie Jarrett stop over and
drop a couple of grapes in my mouth before the jigger of hemlock.
ps I might decry her politics-- but I still worship her discarded gym
socks, holy or unholy. Like Napoleon Solo and Sonia... born to fail.

This just in:

IRS finds that it's ok to flag someone for investigation who claims they want to secede from the Union or that they or their business shouldn't have to pay taxes.

Originally posted by CryHavoc
This just in:

IRS finds that it's ok to flag someone for investigation who claims they want to secede from the Union or that they or their business shouldn't have to pay taxes.

BUMP. OK? Like I'd love to know where they're going to cite Title 26
OR 18 to tell us it's OK to even throw a tax penalty on us because
we private citizens are not volunteering our income-- or might even want
to give the U.S. Secretary of State a letter proclaiming exact political
status... much less politely disagreeing with their present political stance.
And it's too late for me to worry about getting put on a list.
I should by now be showing up more than Lucille Ball on Comcast.
ps polite is about to change... into real change

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by something wicked

 

Dear something wicked,

I agree with you, partially, let me deal with that first.

Is there absolute, "beyond a reasonable doubt" proof? No, you're right. Might I add "not yet." The point of the investigations is to establish proof of what happened and who did what. They are already turning up interesting proofs. Many on the left and right are saying that, as of now, things are not looking good for the Administration.

But I must ask for an apology, which of course you don't have to offer, for your statement:

Dear me Charles, you really must think Obama is a muslim for him to be attracting this level of ire from you

I have never claimed that Obama is a Muslim. My standard position is "I don't know, but it is a question in some people's minds. The important question isn't his religion but his policies." You have misrepresented me.

Besides, as I said, I truly and honestly don't care about the religion. I don't have any leanings on that subject, and i believe my posts reflect that.

Further, you are insisting that other posters provide proof. Will you provide proof of your statement? Or am I expecting the impossible?

With respect,
Charles1952

P.s. "Credibility points" are crucial to me. If they mean nothing to you, that's your call. - C -

edit on 11-5-2013 by charles1952 because: Add P.s.

Snipped a little to keep to the main point of my post.

Charles if you would like an apology, then I apologise, the comment was made as the last two threads I have been on as well as yourself were ones in which you showed a very critical stance on the Islamic religion - indeed it surprises me you have no interest in religion given how strongly you placed your feelings. It was meant as a light hearted comment based on that - I'm a little surprised if you feel such comments risk your credibility, particularly as I only responded based on your post where you reference Nixon being impeached as though that somehow implied Obama had committed the same alleged offence without any facts to back that up. That is just spreading the smoke and hinting there is a fire.

I'm not certain of the particulars of the letter of the law, but this would certainly seem to defy at they very, very least the spirit of the equal protection clause. Targeting a political ideology based on their espoused views rather than specific laws being broken.

It is incredibly disturbing that they have "apologized" for it, as though a mea culpa is all that's called for. Most people would brand me extremely liberal (though I don't like such categorizations personally) and I disagree with many Tea Party positions. But I cannot agree with unequally targeting any subset of citizens for their political ideology speech.

No doubt an argument will be made that the IRS is a private organization and not an agency of the government, just as this argument is also made in the case of airport security. It is wearying and worrying to see the continual defense of arguably unconstitutional practices by what are de facto federal agencies (they carry out federal functions crucial to the functioning of the federal government as it currently exists after all,) by labeling them private.

I oppose this stridently.

Peace.

My conspiratorial mind will not allow me to fully believe that the IRS is actually going after Jews. I think this is a classic example of "feathering the bed" so as to make it appear - in the mind of the general public that ......"See, we're going after our own kind too - not just you Gentile (read Goy) home grown terrorists." This story smells like a rat. Why? The IRS is the enforcement arm for the Federal Reserve, and they have been controlled by Jews ever since their inception in 1913. It seems that they are two separate operations but they are not - they act in concert with one another as though they were one.

Please read the "Comments"
DRUDGE REPORT UPDATE: IRS also targeted tax-exempt status of Jewish groups...
IRS Inquisition Update
By Kevin Williamson
May 11, 2013 9:40 AM
Comments
735

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.
From the Jewish Press:

The passionately pro-Israel organization Z STREET filed a lawsuit against the IRS, claiming it had been told by an IRS agent that because the organization was “connected to Israel,” its application for tax-exempt status would receive additional scrutiny. This admission was made in response to a query about the lengthy reveiw of Z STREET’s tax exempt status application.
In addition, the IRS agent told a Z STREET representative that the applications of some of those Israel-related organizations have been assigned to “a special unit in the D.C. office to determine whether the organization’s activities contradict the Administration’s public policies.” . . .
And at least one purely religious Jewish organization, one not focused on Israel, was the recipient of bizarre and highly inappropriate questions about Israel. Those questions also came from the same non-profit division of the IRS at issue for inappropriately targeting politically conservative groups. The IRS required that Jewish organization to state “whether [it] supports the existence of the land of Israel,” and also demanded the organization “[d]escribe [its] religious belief system toward the land of Israel.”
More bureaucratic snafus?

Just a bump and a note.

This could be bigger than Fast & Furious, Benghazi, anything that this administration has done to date.

This is a deliberate misuse and abuse of power.

The administration is showing it's true colours now.

reply to post by beezzer


I would think that Malea farting would be bigger than that. Nothing of substance seems to be coming from either Benghazi OR Fast and Furious.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by beezzer

 

I would think that Malea farting would be bigger than that. Nothing of substance seems to be coming from either Benghazi OR Fast and Furious.

That's because the agencies that would normally be doing the investigations are run by appointed heads by the current administration.

Originally posted by beezzer
Just a bump and a note.

This could be bigger than Fast & Furious, Benghazi, anything that this administration has done to date.

This is a deliberate misuse and abuse of power.

The administration is showing it's true colours now.

You really are..... interesting. Interesting that you use the British way of spelling colours though?

Anyhow, if this was a concerted attempt to target shall we say the further right of the Republic party and you are game for it being a conspiracy, how do you know it wasn't arranged by someone in the Republican party to try and stabalise the party itself rather than it becoming more splintered and dividing up the vote?

I know as much as you do, the difference is, I'm not trying to make my opinion appear a fact.

Originally posted by beezzer

That's because the agencies that would normally be doing the investigations are run by appointed heads by the current administration.

Thats the Problem.

I believe its a systematic "breakdown" of doing their duty.

I would expect them to do their Jobs, and if the White House is blurring the facts, then to call them out on it !

The IRS is a fanatically driven juggernaut, hell bent on keeping folks under their thumb. Im not liking this one bit.

Originally posted by something wicked

Originally posted by beezzer
Just a bump and a note.

This could be bigger than Fast & Furious, Benghazi, anything that this administration has done to date.

This is a deliberate misuse and abuse of power.

The administration is showing it's true colours now.

You really are..... interesting. Interesting that you use the British way of spelling colours though?

Anyhow, if this was a concerted attempt to target shall we say the further right of the Republic party and you are game for it being a conspiracy, how do you know it wasn't arranged by someone in the Republican party to try and stabalise the party itself rather than it becoming more splintered and dividing up the vote?

I know as much as you do, the difference is, I'm not trying to make my opinion appear a fact.

Colours? Habit. Was raised in the UK. Sue me.

And you are free to speculate and try to pin this on *cough* conservatives. But simply using Occam's Razor would tell you that the current administration would benefit the most by using the IRS to suppress or intimidate an opposing political ideology.

As for me being interesting? I'm absolutely fan-fracking-tastic!

reply to post by sonnny1


Don't forget, the same IRS will be monitoring Obamacare starting next year as well.

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by sonnny1

 

Don't forget, the same IRS will be monitoring Obamacare starting next year as well.

Yeah, its a scary thought, aint it?

Im still in awe that half this Country doesn't want Obamacare, but it is law/Tax.

I also see Jewish groups were being "watched" by the IRS.......



Who put the Orders out? Would like to know.

I bet that even though the IRS "apologized", they will still be auditing these groups. From my experiance, anytime someone points out a mistake/agenda within the government, a vendetta follows.

All the groups that were targeted had better have their stuff together. All their "i's" dotted and "t's" crossed.

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by beezzer

 

I would think that Malea farting would be bigger than that. Nothing of substance seems to be coming from either Benghazi OR Fast and Furious.

That's because the agencies that would normally be doing the investigations are run by appointed heads by the current administration.

I think you hit that nail on the head with a sledgehammer there!

Whatever else Fast and Furious was, Obama went from having a loyal Attorney General to one he outright owns now. Period.

When he threw that executive privilege over Holder, Justice and everyone remotely connected through that route? How much would you bet it wasn't left to assumption that security blankets can be taken BACK too. Therein, lay the outright corruption and purchase of the direct appointed head for investigation within the Federal Government. At least on the executive side. Now...is Congress made up of mice or men? I hear a lot of squeaking so far.

reply to post by HauntWok


Rather than deal with the information you have chosen to throw out a red-herring? Come on Haunt, you can do better than that. Are you okay with the IRS targeting groups based on their perceived political standings?

Coming full circle, nearly 215 years later. What happened you think then? The Alien and Sedition Acts were proposed and enacted.

That if any persons shall unlawfully combine or conspire together, with intent to oppose any measure or measures of the government of the United States, which are or shall be directed by proper authority, or to impede the operation of any law of the United States, or to intimidate or prevent any person holding a place or office in or under the government of the United States, from undertaking, performing or executing his trust or duty, and if any person or persons, with intent as aforesaid, shall counsel, advise or attempt to procure any insurrection, riot, unlawful assembly, or combination, whether such conspiracy, threatening, counsel, advice, or attempt shall have the proposed effect or not, he or they shall be deemed guilty of a high misdemeanor, and on conviction...

Sounds like the world we live under today. While this particular instance doesn't constitute a conviction, it is the arm of the Executive Branch exacting its control to silence "legal" speech.