|
|
Post by JP5 on Jul 24, 2013 1:00:59 GMT
The IRS scandal in the U.S. is heating up as we discovered last week in Congressional testimony that Pres. Obama's IRS political appointee, William Wilkins, visited the White just after one of their meetings about targeting Tea Party applications.....and just before new guidelines on targeting these U.S. citizens were made. Using the powerful Internal Revenue Service to go after political enemies is against the law...an abuse of power... and it's what took former president Nixon down.
Also during the testimony, we discovered that a political candidate's tax information was accessed...as well as one of the conservative political donors tax info was accessed. This information was turned over to the Justice Dept (Eric Holder) by the IRS IG, but Holder refused to investigate it any further and blew it off.
"A top IRS official and Obama appointee – who recently has emerged as a key figure in the IRS targeting scandal -- may have met with President Obama just days before his office put out new guidance on how the agency screens conservative groups."
The Obama administration has claimed that Obama knew nothing about any of the targeting and was in no way involved. Obama told the American peope he was not involved and only learned of it when it was reported in the news. We WILL get to the bottom of the issue, however.
Read more: www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/07/23/did-irs-appointee-meet-with-obama-before-new-screening-guidelines-released/?test=latestnews#ixzz2Zv4eiz6X
|
|
|
|
Post by 12th on Jul 24, 2013 6:15:51 GMT
People are so accustomed to being afraid of the IRS, they can't conceive of life without it. They think a couple of people will be fired and life will go back to normal. I wish I was talented so I write some vivid analogy about shooing flies off a the stinky carcass of a ...
I hate this font. Can I pick another one?
|
|
|
|
Post by JP5 on Jul 24, 2013 7:03:54 GMT
People are so accustomed to being afraid of the IRS, they can't conceive of life without it. They think a couple of people will be fired and life will go back to normal. I wish I was talented so I write some vivid analogy about shooing flies off a the stinky carcass of a ... I hate this font. Can I pick another one?  |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Jul 24, 2013 10:06:02 GMT
This continued to pretty much be a non-issue for anyone but rabid Republicans based upon what we know. We know that the BOLO (Be On Look Out) lists included both liberal and conservative "trigger" words to assist the IRS agents in identifying potential PAC's attempting to inappropriately seek 501(c) (PAC's are controlled by different IRS codes). We know that no organization was refused 501(c) status based upon these IRS investigations. We know that the BOLO lists are not the only basis for the IRS investigations on 501(c) status. We know that there is no connection between the IRS BOLO lists and the White House. We know that "conservative" groups only comprised about 30% of all groups seeking 501(c) status. And finally we know that the IRS agents have a duty and responsibility to ensure that those groups seeking 501(c) qualify for that tax exempt status.
This witch hunt has now been going on for months and to day the rabid Republicans in the House haven't found anything of interest but they keep plugging away at it.
|
|
|
|
Post by 12th on Jul 24, 2013 16:17:44 GMT
Lois Lerner is a rabid republican?
word word word word
|
|
|
|
Post by 12th on Jul 24, 2013 16:24:39 GMT
Do you have to edit to change the font?
I don't see it.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Jul 24, 2013 18:15:31 GMT
Do you have to edit to change the font? I don't see it. If you use either the "quote" function or the "Reply" at the top of the page it gives the full options for Font Face, Font Size and bold, underline, italic, etc. to us. Quick Relies don't have that option. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Jul 24, 2013 18:19:27 GMT
Florida Rep Connie Mack (R) was on Bill Maher last Friday and while admitting that the IRS BOLO addressed both liberal, conservative, and other "trigger" words he made the statement that the IRS shouldn't be using "political criteria" in doing it's investigations into 501(c) status applications. So let's see, the IRS agents are supposed to question organizations that appear to be PAC's but can't do so based upon any political criteria? Seriously? Do Republicans really think like this? Amazing!!
|
|
|
|
Post by JP5 on Jul 24, 2013 21:32:12 GMT
This continued to pretty much be a non-issue for anyone but rabid Republicans based upon what we know. We know that the BOLO (Be On Look Out) lists included both liberal and conservative "trigger" words to assist the IRS agents in identifying potential PAC's attempting to inappropriately seek 501(c) (PAC's are controlled by different IRS codes). We know that no organization was refused 501(c) status based upon these IRS investigations. We know that the BOLO lists are not the only basis for the IRS investigations on 501(c) status. We know that there is no connection between the IRS BOLO lists and the White House. We know that "conservative" groups only comprised about 30% of all groups seeking 501(c) status. And finally we know that the IRS agents have a duty and responsibility to ensure that those groups seeking 501(c) qualify for that tax exempt status.
This witch hunt has now been going on for months and to day the rabid Republicans in the House haven't found anything of interest but they keep plugging away at it.
And now with the connection to meetings and White House visits of Obama's top IRS political appointee.....this has to be investigated further. William Wilkins must testify under oath and answer these questions.
I know for a fact that you and Democrats would in no way allow something like this to just go away.....IF it were a Republican administration. Because what we've got here that we absolutely know is.......1) the President claiming he knew nothing about any of this at all UNTIL he read it in the news. (If one believes that, I've some swampland I'd like to sell them), 2) Just Tea Party applicants were given this kind of extra scrutiny, 3) only Tea Party applicants are those that claimed they disagreed with how the country was going were kept out of the system through delays until at least after the election. Many are STILL not approved or denied; they were simply left in limbo.
We also know through testimony that the IG discovered that a political candidate's IRS information had been accessed....as well as one of their donors. This info was turned over to Holder by this IG....and Holder ignored it.
I'm sorry....but it's abuse of power to use the IRS in this manner for political purposes. It's what took Richard Nixon down. And it was not his involvement, but his cover-up that took him down. So---Obama and his cohorts better not be involved in a cover-up. The investigation continues even though the mainstream is choosing to ignore it and hoping it all just fades away. It's not going away.....and IMHO, is the WORST scandal that this administration has going.
Also----we know now for sure that Obama's top IRS political appointee was involved. Question for you: Since Obama said he was "appalled" at the targeting......WHY is William Wilkins STILL in that position?
|
|
|
|
Post by JP5 on Jul 24, 2013 21:40:34 GMT
Florida Rep Connie Mack (R) was on Bill Maher last Friday and while admitting that the IRS BOLO addressed both liberal, conservative, and other "trigger" words he made the statement that the IRS shouldn't be using "political criteria" in doing it's investigations into 501(c) status applications. So let's see, the IRS agents are supposed to question organizations that appear to be PAC's but can't do so based upon any political criteria? Seriously? Do Republicans really think like this? Amazing!!
Obama's PAC got switched over to a 501(c)(4) in less than one month personally by Lois Lerner. They got to keep and use the money held over from that PAC as well. And yet, we know he held political office.....and his supporters in the PAC were donors. Can you explain to us why it is the president can do this so easily......and yet Tea Party applicants were denied applications that had nothing to do with a previous PAC? This was clearly an abuse of power using the IRS against political enemies.
Lois Lerner would not have planted that question and apologized (to try and save themselves) FOR TARGETING TEA PARTY APPLICANTS IF they had not targeted Tea party applicants. So, that's a FACT, they purposefully targeted Tea Party applicants. She also lied when she said they learned of it a year earlier and sought to correct it. Carter Hull has already disputed that under oath describing meetings he attended after that time period where she then instructed everyone present to not refer to them as "Tea Party" applications anymore....but to call them "advocacy" applications. After that, she knew she was in deep do-do and is why she took the 5th.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Jul 24, 2013 23:18:49 GMT
And the Tea Party Nation established a 501(c) non-profit as did the National Organization for Marriage that sponsored Prop 8 in California and the list goes on and on. Not a single 501(c) applicant has been denied 501(c) based upon further investigations by the IRS that the agents are responsible for carrying out. It is also my understanding that liberal organizations have also come forward that applied for 501(c) status and, in fact, the IRS information alone establishes that this happened because "conservative" groups only accounted for 1/3rd of those organization that were investigated as possibly being PAC's trying to hide behind 501(c) status.
Personally I'd like to see the 501(c) status rules changed so that no 501(c) group can use any funds raised to promote political issues. If they want to promote political issues then they can have non-profit status as a PAC so that full disclosure is required. This is the fundamental problem I see with 501(c)(4) status is that it allows the organization to hide it's donors from public disclosure. I don't care if people use their money for promoting a political agenda but I believe we have a right to know who they are.
Of course a "political" appointee would probably be allowed to visit the White House. Geeze, acting like this is some "criminal" conspiracy is as bad as being a "Birther" or a "Truther" conspiracy theorists. What's it been, eight months or so of the House wasting it's time on this matter and they've got zero. Every IRS agent question has denied any "political" motivation in their investigations. They treat every organization the same in attempting to determine if they're a PAC or a legitimate 501(c) applicant and that's their job. I only wish they'd do a better job of it because I believe too many groups that are primarily PAC have already received 501(c) status.
|
|
|
|
Post by JP5 on Jul 25, 2013 2:43:57 GMT
Then WHY did Lois Lerner apologize for targeting the Tea Party? That's an admission it was done. We KNOW it was done through all the testimony.....including the IG. Both the WH and Lois Lerner and others all tried to place blame for it in the beginning on two rogue Cincinatti low-level employees. Problem is.....that didn't work for them...and we know that was an outright lie. There's been too many lies already.....and we need to know who started this targeting and who has tried to cover it up. Now, if it truly doesn't go all the way up to the president and he was telling the truth about not knowing a thing until he read it in the newspapers........then you have nothing to worry about.
Watergate was investigated for about a year before people started talking and the whole truth came out. Obama and his press secretary are now referring to it as a "phony scandal" when he first acted as if he was "appalled." Something doesn't match up there. IMHO, they are lying and trying to change the subject. I could be wrong. But we need to find out. And we WILL find out.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Jul 25, 2013 10:27:03 GMT
Once again all the evidence points to the "local" IRS offices changing the BOLO lists that when later submitted to the national IRS offices were changed to remove "political criteria" that was deemed inappropriate. Every single IRS agent has testified that they were not politically motivated in their investigations. There has been zero evidence that any of this was orchestrated from the head of the IRS or the White House.
Here is my position though. Even if "conservative" groups were targeted more than "liberal" groups the problem isn't with the fact that too many "conservative" groups were subjected to investigations on their filing for 501(c) tax exempt status. The problem would merely be that not enough "liberal" groups were subjected to this additional scrutiny.
A group that is predominately based upon a political agenda to change the vote should be considered a PAC as opposed to an "educational" organization. It is meddling in politics and that is what PAC's do. I don't care if it's 20% (which would allow them to claim 501(c)(4) status or if it's 80% (where they would be considered a PAC) they're still attempting to change the vote and should be classified as a PAC.
If people are using their money to influence the vote then we, the American electorate, have a right to know who they are.
A PAC has to publicly disclose it's donors but a 501(c)(4) entity does not. Both can be classified as "not for profit" entities so there isn't a "tax" advantage for them. Disclosure of donors that are attempting to influence the vote is the key issue here that needs to be addressed.
Why do these Tea Party organizations want to hide who the donors are is the question that "conservatives" don't want to address?
|
|
|
|
Post by JP5 on Jul 27, 2013 23:05:30 GMT
Shiva: Why do these Tea party organizations want to hide who the donors are is the question that "conservatives" don't want to address?
JP5: Why do liberals and libertarians expect one set of rules for themselves....and different ones for Tea Party organizations? A 501(c)(4) doensn't require providing donor information. You realize that, don't you?
|
|
|
|
Post by JP5 on Jul 28, 2013 1:37:31 GMT
"IRS chief counsel William Wilkins, who was named in House Oversight testimony by retiring IRS agent Carter Hull as one of his supervisors in the improper targeting of conservative groups, met with Obama in the Roosevelt Room of the White House on April 23, 2012. Wilkins' boss, then-IRS commissioner Douglas Shulman, visited the Eisenhower Executive Office Building on April 24, 2012, according to White House visitor logs. On April 25, 2012, Wilkins' office sent the exempt organizations determinations unit "additional comments on the draft guidance" for approving or denying tea party tax-exempt applications, according to the IRS inspector general's report." dailycaller.com/2013/07/22/embattled-irs-chief-counsel-met-with-obama-2-days-before-writing-new-targeting-criteria/ |
|
