Anybody Surprised?

[hal lillywhite]

The IRS now admits targeting conservative groups for extra
"attention."

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/irs-apologizes-targeting-conservative-groups

But they claim management didn't know about it and that it was not
politically motivated! Do they really expect us to swallow that?

[hal lillywhite]

On May 10, 11:56 am, hal lillywhite <hlill...@juno.com> wrote:
> The IRS now admits targeting conservative groups for extra
> "attention."
>

> http://bigstory.ap.org/article/irs-apologizes-targeting-conservative-...

>
> But they claim management didn't know about it and that it was not
> politically motivated! Do they really expect us to swallow that?

And the latest, we should have seen this coming, the Obama
administration is blaming Bush.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/carney-irs-run-bush-political-appointee_722149.html

Truman: The buck stops here.

Obama: It's all Bush's fault.

[Baxter]

-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"hal lillywhite" <hlil...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:c8771349-137f-48e6...@ys5g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...

>Truman: The buck stops here.
>
>Obama: It's all Bush's fault.

Rightwads: Reagan and Bush were/are perfect in every way.

[Baxter]

-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Baxter" <baxter.s...@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:kmjsim$1lv$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

> "hal lillywhite" <hlil...@juno.com> wrote in message
> news:c8771349-137f-48e6...@ys5g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...
>
>>Truman: The buck stops here.
>>
>>Obama: It's all Bush's fault.
>
> Rightwads: Reagan and Bush were/are perfect in every way.
>

Oh, and while hal is whining about actual facts, the Repugs are wasting
prodigious time and tax dollars blaming Clinton for Benghazi and anything
else they think might stick.

[Sancho Panza]

Why is it "wasting prodigious time"?

[Baxter]

-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Sancho Panza" <otter...@xhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:518d8d99$0$19553$607e...@cv.net...

You don't like "prodigious"? Then insert "boocu", "bucket loads",
"inordinate", or the like.

[Sancho Panza]

You just can't answer a simple question. So the result stands that once
again you don't have a single reason for what you post. That is the
basic definition of a troll. No surprise there!

[Bill Shatzer]

In the absense of any evidence to the contrary, yes.

peace and justice,

[hal lillywhite]

On May 10, 6:02 pm, Sancho Panza <otterpo...@xhotmail.com> wrote:

> >>>>> Truman: The buck stops here.
>
> >>>>> Obama: It's all Bush's fault.
>
> >>>> Rightwads:  Reagan and Bush were/are perfect in every way.

That is hilarious! Anyone here think Reagan and Bush were perfect in
every way? Anyone know anyone who does?

> >>> Oh, and while hal is whining about actual facts, the Repugs are wasting
> >>> prodigious time and tax dollars blaming Clinton for Benghazi and anything
> >>> else they think might stick.
>
> >> Why is it "wasting prodigious time"?
>
> > You don't like "prodigious"?  Then insert "boocu", "bucket loads",
> > "inordinate", or the like.
>
> You just can't answer a simple question. So the result stands that once
> again you don't have a single reason for what you post. That is the
> basic definition of a troll. No surprise there!

LeRoy's one discernible talent is to change the subject and drag out
threads long after he has been shown wrong.

[Sancho Panza]

So even when the targeted groups complained in the middle of the
campaign, the management remained deaf, dumb and blind. Maybe you would
prefer, say, that the Ways and Means Committee start issuing subpoenas
to the treasury secretary and company.

[hal lillywhite]

On May 10, 10:27 pm, Bill Shatzer <ww...@NOcornell.edu> wrote:
> hal lillywhite wrote:
> > The IRS now admits targeting conservative groups for extra
> > "attention."

> >http://bigstory.ap.org/article/irs-apologizes-targeting-conservative-...

> > But they claim management didn't know about it and that it was not
> > politically motivated! Do they really expect us to swallow that?
>
> In the absense of any evidence to the contrary, yes.

Huh?

"The Internal Revenue Service 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."

They confessed to inappropriate targeting of conservative groups. No
indication of targeting of leftist groups. If that was not
politically motivated, pray tell what might have been the motivation?
In fact they were looking for words like "Tea Party" and "Patriot" and
using those words to trigger targeting. Does that not indicate bias?

[hal lillywhite]

PS. Do a gander test on this. If during the Bush administration they
had been targeting leftist groups, looking for phrases like "one payer
health care," would you not have called it political bias?

[Baxter]

-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"hal lillywhite" <hlil...@juno.com> wrote in message

news:0cb6002b-8212-45c1...@fq2g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...

On May 10, 10:27 pm, Bill Shatzer <ww...@NOcornell.edu> wrote:
>> hal lillywhite wrote:
>> > The IRS now admits targeting conservative groups for extra
>> > "attention."
>> >http://bigstory.ap.org/article/irs-apologizes-targeting-conservative-...
>> > But they claim management didn't know about it and that it was not
>> > politically motivated! Do they really expect us to swallow that?
>>
>> In the absense of any evidence to the contrary, yes.
>
>Huh?
>
>"The Internal Revenue Service 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."
>
>They confessed to inappropriate targeting of conservative groups. No
>indication of targeting of leftist groups.

Yet we know for a fact that they have targeted "leftist" groups in the past.

>If that was not
>politically motivated, pray tell what might have been the motivation?

How about the link to the text of their apology? If that doesn't answer
your question, then that apology is largely boiler-plate and not real.

>In fact they were looking for words like "Tea Party" and "Patriot" and
>using those words to trigger targeting. Does that not indicate bias?

Or perhaps Corporate.

[Baxter]

-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"hal lillywhite" <hlil...@juno.com> wrote in message

news:bf7a5e13-9e45-4250...@pd6g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...

>PS. Do a gander test on this. If during the Bush administration they
>had been targeting leftist groups, looking for phrases like "one payer
>health care," would you not have called it political bias?

How about http://articles.latimes.com/2005/nov/07/local/me-allsaints7 ?

Also:
========

The Internal Revenue Service apologized Friday for what it acknowledged was

�inappropriate� targeting of liberal political groups during the 2004

election to see if they were violating their tax-exempt status.

http://thebartelists.com/2013/05/10/irs-admits-to-targetting-liberal-political-groups/

[Sancho Panza]

On 5/11/2013 1:39 PM, Baxter wrote:
> -
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> "hal lillywhite" <hlil...@juno.com> wrote in message
> news:bf7a5e13-9e45-4250...@pd6g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...
>
>> PS. Do a gander test on this. If during the Bush administration they
>> had been targeting leftist groups, looking for phrases like "one payer
>> health care," would you not have called it political bias?
>
> How about http://articles.latimes.com/2005/nov/07/local/me-allsaints7 ?
>
> Also:
> ========
> The Internal Revenue Service apologized Friday for what it acknowledged was

> �inappropriate� targeting of liberal political groups during the 2004

> election to see if they were violating their tax-exempt status.
>
> http://thebartelists.com/2013/05/10/irs-admits-to-targetting-liberal-political-groups/
>
>

Wanna bet nobody pays for such transgressions?

[Bill Shatzer]

hal lillywhite wrote:

> On May 10, 10:27 pm, Bill Shatzer <ww...@NOcornell.edu> wrote:
>
>>hal lillywhite wrote:

>>>The IRS now admits targeting conservative groups for extra
>>>"attention."
>>>http://bigstory.ap.org/article/irs-apologizes-targeting-conservative-...
>>>But they claim management didn't know about it and that it was not
>>>politically motivated! Do they really expect us to swallow that?

>>In the absense of any evidence to the contrary, yes.

> Huh?

> "The Internal Revenue Service 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."

> They confessed to inappropriate targeting of conservative groups. No
> indication of targeting of leftist groups. If that was not
> politically motivated, pray tell what might have been the motivation?

To ensure that organizations applying for 501(c)(3) status in fact meet
the requirements for that status and are not just a cover for a
political action committee.

> In fact they were looking for words like "Tea Party" and "Patriot" and
> using those words to trigger targeting.

If you wanna catch fish, you've gotta go where the fish are.

> Does that not indicate bias?

Almost by definition, a "tea party" organization is going to tip toe up
to if not cross the line forbidding political activities. After all,
whatever could be the purpose of a non-political or apolitical tea party
organization?

I mean, whyfor would these organizations be applying to the IRS save to
get approval for their tax exempt status?

peace and justice

[hal lillywhite]

On May 11, 8:03 pm, Bill Shatzer <ww...@NOcornell.edu> wrote:
> hal lillywhite wrote:
> > On May 10, 10:27 pm, Bill Shatzer <ww...@NOcornell.edu> wrote:
>
> >>hal lillywhite wrote:
> >>>The IRS now admits targeting conservative groups for extra
> >>>"attention."
> >>>http://bigstory.ap.org/article/irs-apologizes-targeting-conservative-...
> >>>But they claim management didn't know about it and that it was not
> >>>politically motivated! Do they really expect us to swallow that?
> >>In the absense of any evidence to the contrary, yes.
> > Huh?
> > "The Internal Revenue Service 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."
> > They confessed to inappropriate targeting of conservative groups.  No
> > indication of targeting of leftist groups.  If that was not
> > politically motivated, pray tell what might have been the motivation?
>
> To ensure that organizations applying for 501(c)(3) status in fact meet
> the requirements for that status and are not just a cover for a
> political action committee.

Yet the IRS *admitted* that the targeting was inappropriate. Why do
you think it was inappropriate? Surely not because they suspected
malfeasance. The only reason it could be inappropriate is if those
organizations were picked for reasons other than reasonable suspicion.

And there is new information indicating that IRS upper management knew
about this as early as 2011

"But according to a draft of a watchdog's report obtained Saturday by
The Associated Press that seemingly contradicts public statements by
the IRS commissioner, senior IRS officials knew agents were targeting
tea party groups as early as 2011."

...

"But on June 29, 2011, Lerner learned at a meeting that groups were
being targeted, according to the watchdog's report. At the meeting,
she was told that groups with "Tea Party," `'Patriot" or "9/12
Project" in their names were being flagged for additional and often
burdensome scrutiny, the report says."
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_IRS_POLITICAL_GROUPS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-05-11-19-11-24

Even Maureen Dowd effectively admits that this was nasty. "(Though
now that the I.R.S. has confessed to targeting Tea Party groups, maybe
some of the paranoia is justified.)"
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/12/opinion/sunday/dowd-when-myths-collide-in-the-capital.html?_r=1&

> > In fact they were looking for words like "Tea Party" and "Patriot" and
> > using those words to trigger targeting.
>
> If you wanna catch fish, you've gotta go where the fish are.

And just how many on the left were singled out for this?

> > Does that not indicate bias?
>
> Almost by definition, a "tea party" organization is going to tip toe up
> to if not cross the line forbidding political activities.

By definition? Surely you jest.

> After all,
> whatever could be the purpose of a non-political or apolitical tea party
> organization?

Education in the constitution is of course political but does not make
them ineligible for tax-exempt status. The issue is not if it is
political or not but if they meet the requirements for tax exemption.
If they come out and say "vote for Romney" that would be a no-no, just
as it would be for a leftist tax-exempt group to say "vote for
Obama." However advocating for constitutional principles would be
legal.

[Baxter]

-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"hal lillywhite" <hlil...@juno.com> wrote in message

news:9e9a872c-cfae-4657...@yb1g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...

>"But according to a draft of a watchdog's report obtained Saturday by
>The Associated Press that seemingly contradicts public statements by
>the IRS commissioner, senior IRS officials knew agents were targeting
>tea party groups as early as 2011."

It's a conspiracy!!!
----------------
Former Congressman Allen West on Sunday (R-FL) said that an admission by the
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) that it had improperly scrutinized tea party
groups was part of a wider conspiracy that included President Barack Obama’s
administration forcing Republican-owned car dealerships to be shut down
during the auto bailout in 2009.

http://tinyurl.com/dxwsm4s

[hal lillywhite]

On May 12, 8:59 am, hal lillywhite <hlill...@juno.com> wrote:

> > Almost by definition, a "tea party" organization is going to tip toe up
> > to if not cross the line forbidding political activities.
>
> By definition?  Surely you jest.
>
> > After all,
> > whatever could be the purpose of a non-political or apolitical tea party
> > organization?
>
> Education in the constitution is of course political but does not make
> them ineligible for tax-exempt status.  The issue is not if it is
> political or not but if they meet the requirements for tax exemption.
> If they come out and say "vote for Romney" that would be a no-no, just
> as it would be for a leftist tax-exempt group to say "vote for
> Obama."  However advocating for constitutional principles would be
> legal.

This seems to be getting deeper quickly.

"At various points over the past two years, Internal Revenue Service
officials targeted nonprofit groups that criticized the government and
sought to educate Americans about the U.S. Constitution, according to
documents in an audit conducted by the agency’s inspector general."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/05/12/irs-targeted-groups-that-criticized-the-government-ig-report-says/

and

"WASHINGTON—The Internal Revenue Service's scrutiny of conservative
groups went beyond those that had "tea party" or "patriot" in their
names—as the agency admitted Friday—to also include ones that raised
concerns over government spending, debt or taxes, and even ones that
lobbied to "make America a better place to live," according to new
details of a government probe.

"The investigation also revealed that a high-ranking IRS official knew
as early as mid-2011 that conservative groups were being
inappropriately targeted—nearly a year before then-IRS Commissioner
Douglas Shulman told a congressional committee the agency wasn't
targeting conservative groups."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324715704578478851998004528.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTTopStories

Apparently they even targeted Jewish groupsL

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/348013/irs-inquisition-update

[Bill Shatzer]

hal lillywhite wrote:

> And there is new information indicating that IRS upper management knew
> about this as early as 2011

> "But according to a draft of a watchdog's report obtained Saturday by
> The Associated Press that seemingly contradicts public statements by
> the IRS commissioner, senior IRS officials knew agents were targeting
> tea party groups as early as 2011."

> "But on June 29, 2011, Lerner learned at a meeting that groups were
> being targeted, according to the watchdog's report. At the meeting,
> she was told that groups with "Tea Party," `'Patriot" or "9/12
> Project" in their names were being flagged for additional and often
> burdensome scrutiny, the report says."
> http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_IRS_POLITICAL_GROUPS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-05-11-19-11-24

You seem to have omitted a rather crucial part of the article.

"Lerner instructed agents to change the criteria for flagging groups
'immediately,' the report says."

>>Almost by definition, a "tea party" organization is going to tip toe up
>>to if not cross the line forbidding political activities.

> By definition? Surely you jest.

Whatever would an apolitical Tea Party look like?

Perhaps somewheres there is a group calling itself a Tea Party which is
truly apolitical but at least the ones I'm familiar with are profoundly
political, in both their announced objectives and their methods.

>>After all,
>>whatever could be the purpose of a non-political or apolitical tea party
>>organization?

> Education in the constitution is of course political but does not make
> them ineligible for tax-exempt status.

Alas, the line between "education' and "political action" is all too
often breached.

Is "education" about the "fact" of Obama's Kenyan birth apolitical?

Was the "education" about Kerry's Vietnam service provided by the
Swift-boaters apolitical?

Neither the birthers nor the Swiftboaters were ever so stupid as to come
out with a "don't vote for ...." ad but it would be tough to argue that
either was apolitical.

> The issue is not if it is
> political or not but if they meet the requirements for tax exemption.
> If they come out and say "vote for Romney" that would be a no-no, just
> as it would be for a leftist tax-exempt group to say "vote for
> Obama." However advocating for constitutional principles would be
> legal.

It rather depends on how they do it and exactly which "constitutional
principles" they're advocating.


/peace and justice/

[hal lillywhite]

On May 12, 8:44 pm, Bill Shatzer <ww...@NOcornell.edu> wrote:
"
> > "But on June 29, 2011, Lerner learned at a meeting that groups were
> > being targeted, according to the watchdog's report. At the meeting,
> > she was told that groups with "Tea Party," `'Patriot" or "9/12
> > Project" in their names were being flagged for additional and often
> > burdensome scrutiny, the report says."

> >http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_IRS_POLITICAL_GROUPS?SITE=A...

>
> You seem to have omitted a rather crucial part of the article.
>
> "Lerner instructed agents to change the criteria for flagging groups
> 'immediately,' the report says."

And how was it changed?

"The internal IG timeline shows a unit in the agency was looking at
Tea Party and "patriot" groups dating back to early 2010. But it shows
that list of criteria drastically expanding by the time a June 2011
briefing was held. It then included groups focused on government
spending, government debt, taxes, and education on ways to "make
America a better place to live." It even flagged groups whose file
included criticism of "how the country is being run."

"By early 2012, the criteria were updated to include organizations
involved in "limiting/expanding government," education on the
Constitution and Bill of Rights, and social economic reform."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/13/irs-scrutiny-went-beyond-tea-party-criteria-broader-than-thought/

> >>Almost by definition, a "tea party" organization is going to tip toe up
> >>to if not cross the line forbidding political activities.
> > By definition?  Surely you jest.
>
> Whatever would an apolitical Tea Party look like?

Did you read what I wrote? I never claimed the Tea Part was
apolitical, only that it probably meets the guidelines for 501C.

...

> > Education in the constitution is of course political but does not make
> > them ineligible for tax-exempt status.
>
> Alas, the line between "education' and "political action" is all too
> often breached.

Yet ""After all," [Sen Colins] added, "groups with `progressive' in
their names were not targeted similarly."
(Same URL)
...
Even at least one donkey (Baucus) is upset about this. (again same
URL).

Just how high in the IRS or administration this goes is yet to be
determined but so far the evidence is that, as Baucus says, "These
actions by the IRS are an outrageous abuse of power and a breach of
the public's trust. Targeting groups based on their political views is
not only inappropriate but it is intolerable,"

[Sancho Panza]

While the IRS was all tied up with chasing down enemies of the state and
the state's party, here are the billions it has given away illegally:

http://videos2view.net/tax-fraud.htm

[hal lillywhite]

On May 13, 10:05 am, hal lillywhite <hlill...@juno.com> wrote:

> Just how high in the IRS or administration this goes is yet to be
> determined but so far the evidence is that, as Baucus says, "These
> actions by the IRS are an outrageous abuse of power and a breach of
> the public's trust. Targeting groups based on their political views is
> not only inappropriate but it is intolerable,"

It now appears that this goes at least to the upper levels of IRS
management. A couple of other interesting developments:

1. The question that triggered the whole thing coming to light was
apparently planted. It appears that with the election safely over the
IRS brass decided to let the cat out of the bag.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/17/lerners-admission-was-pre-planned-public-disclosure/

2. IRS commissioner Steven Miller claims that the targeting was not
illegal.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/irs-commissioner-activity-absolutely-not-illegal_724747.html

I'm not a lawyer and do not know if it violates current law or not.
If it is not illegal it certainly should be. In fact if it is not
illegal it would raise constitutional questions since targeting one
political viewpoint seems to violate the first amendment.

3. Charlie Rangel, of all people, is joining the chorus screaming
foul. At least he has some sense of fairness.

http://freebeacon.com/rangel-this-is-wrong-to-abuse-the-tax-system/

4. It appears that the IRS deliberately delayed reveling this till
after the election.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/report-irs-deliberately-chose-not-fess-scandal-election_724711.html
(Note that this originated with NBC, a source not famous for
supporting Republican positions.)