Please provide statistical evidence of this idea that tea party groups are "known to transgress more than others" when it comes to falsely applying for 501(c)(3) status.
That isn't the threshold for 501(c)(3) approval. On top of that, I don't know which tea party groups are considers 501(c)(3) nor am I inclined to spending time to research it. The poster made the claim that tea party groups "known to transgress more than others" when it comes to falsely claiming 501(c)(3) status. Since it is "known" he should have no problem proving it. I'd accept all sorts of forms of evidence. Statistical evidence that tea party groups are denied the status at a higher per application rate than liberal groups. Statistical evidence that more approved tea party groups get the status revoked than liberal groups. If the poster has some wealth of research on the subject that shows tea party groups violating the rules of the status I'd even accept that. Short of any of that I will just assume he has no idea what he is talking about and just chooses to lie.
So during WWII, you're ok with the fact that around 120,000 people of Japanese descent (approximately 65% were American citizens and 50% were children) living in America were removed from their homes and placed in internment camps?
Looks like no tea party group meets the threshold of a 501(c)(3). They don't even meet the requirement of the type of organization that would qualify http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/501(c)_organization 501(c)(3) — Religious, Educational, Charitable, Scientific, Literary, Testing for Public Safety, to Foster National or International Amateur Sports Competition, or Prevention of Cruelty to Children or Animals Organizations
I thought that's what you meant. but even so 501(c)(4) — Civic Leagues, Social Welfare Organizations, and Local Associations of Employees That's one loose interpretation of Social Welfare Organizations No wonder it's so vague and the IRS had issues with trying to figure out who was and wasn't a "Social Welfare Organization"
Are you going to try and coerce me like the Obama minions with their phone records? Not something I liked , but everyone can agree it was a necessary measure at the time.
I agree it is a flawed status that needs to be revised. That said, the IRS didn't seem to have trouble figuring it out, they had a philosophical issue with tea party groups and demanded things from them that they were not allowed to ask for. I'm not sure why you would even try to make an excuse for them when they aren't making excuses for themselves?
Not really making excuses, just realize the environment they were in at the time. Hundreds of groups asking for exempt status after citizen's united (which no one was denied in the end). BTW Issa was included in all of the IG investigations and was briefed as far back as May of last year. I'm curious why this has become an issue all of the sudden. Probably because benghazi was a bust so he's got to keep looking for something to justify his waste of time.
Nope. Democrat applications were pushed through at a faster rate than Republican applications and Democrat groups were asked far less intrusive questions and were granted non-tax status at a higher rate. Number of applicants would be irrelevant. Also doesn't justify the existence of the list saying to flag any Tea Party group, etc.... Also not correct as was mentioned today in the hearings. What was known before is that an investigation was taking place, not that anything had been found. If Issa (or Romney) had brought accusations before anything had been found you would be screaming 'birther'. The internal IRS investigation that ended May 2012 and came to the same conclusions was unknown to Issa or Congress. In other words, The IRS knew 6 months before the election about this violation of the 1st amendment and told no legislators. Schulman confirmed this fact at the hearings. His explanation for not telling anyone what the internal investigation found was that 'he thought it had been cleared up and wasn't an issue any more'.
sweet argument mark. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...atives-official-refuses-answer-questions.html Let me taste your tears. They taste so good. You don't even bother to listen to the hearings and instead just read off some ThinkProgress summary.......
Not according to Lynch (Democrat) or the IRS. Schulman and Paz both have admitted they did not tell legislators about the internal report. Also just common sense mark, Why would Issa wait until after the election if he knew before as you say? Also If Shulman (of the IRS) testified in March of last year that he was unaware of any groups being targeted why would you then assume that Issa had been told about this by the IRS a year ago? Jesus man.
Reporting Puts the IRS Scandal Squarely in Washington by KEITH KOFFLER on MAY 22, 2013 Yes, reporting. It happens. Two examples of actual reporting – one from the conservative media, one from NBC. Yes, you read that right. NBC’s Lisa Meyers is a good investigative reporter who seems to have forsaken NBC’s ideological bent in favor of traditional shoe leather – shoe heel? – reporting. Myers found a 38-year IRS veteran who used to work in the IRS Cincinnati office. While the woman does not believe the investigation was politically motivated, she’s certain this was no rogue operation. Meanwhile, over at the National Review, Eliana Johnson found herself some real live actual sources – pity them, I hope they met her in an underground garage and didn’t communicate by email or phone – who told her that the Washington Technical Unit of the IRS’s Rulings and Agreements office was holding wide sway over the targeting. Officials in the Technical Unit of the IRS’s Rulings and Agreements office played an integral role in determining how the targeted applications were treated, provided general guidelines to Cincinnati case workers, briefed other agency employees on the status of the special cases, and reviewed all those intrusive requests demanding “more information” from tea-party groups. At times, the Technical Unit lawyers seemed to exercise tight control over these applications, creating both a backlog in application processing and frustration among Cincinnati agents waiting for direction. An IRS employee who asked not to be identified tells National Review Onlinethat all members of the agency’s Technical Unit are based in Washington, D.C. A current list of Technical Unit managers provided by another IRS employee shows that all such managers are based at the agency’s headquarters on Constitution Avenue in the District of Columbia, and the IRS confirmed, in a testy exchange with National Review Online, that the Technical Unit is “based in Washington.” According to the IRS source, who is based in Cincinnati, complex cases are routinely elevated to the Technical Unit for guidance. Many of the questions that agents sent to groups most likely came “from Tax Law Specialists — lawyers — in D.C.,” the Cincinnati employee explains. “With tea-party cases, questions from the Tax Law Specialists were way too aggressive,” he says. The House Oversight Committee has a lot more people to call in to testify. And they won’t have to fly in from Cincy – they’re just a cab ride away. They’re also a cab ride away from the White House and Treasury.
NY Times Scrubs Article Critical Of IRS… Via Brian Cates who details how the article was re-written with the lede buried thanks to D.C. bureau chief Jeremy Peters. Before: After: Now, notice what Weisman did here: in the HEADLINE and in the OPENING SENTENCE he revealed the MAJOR NEWS that came out of that day's testimony. The IG directly contradicted the Obama administration's claim it had no idea anything was wrong at the IRS or that certain groups and citizens were being targeted for harassment due to 'incorrect' political beliefs. In other words, WEISMAN DID WHAT A REPORTER IS SUPPOSED TO DO. He led with the news and made it easy to see. Well that really bothered somebody higher up, who decided that Weisman's piece was 'incomplete' and needed some 'massaging' to bring out the REAL STORY. Take a look at what Weisman's original piece was turned into after it was helpfully 'edited' by Jeremy W. Peters: As you can see, Jeremy W. Peters knew EXACTLY what Weisman's article needed; the real story is about the REPUBLICANS trying to use this breaking scandal for their own political benefit. So how could Weisman have left out the word 'Republicans' in the headline? How could he have not inserted Republican attempts to enlarge the scandal to score political points against the White House in the very first sentence? Well Peters made sure those were the very first things that got changed. Peters must have also wondered: Hey Johnathan, WTF? Why are you LEADING with the IG's testimony that he informed top administration officials of the scandal back in 2012? Don't you realize this directly contradicts what Obama & the administration spent all this week claiming? Why the bloody blue hell would you make THAT the lede? Are you seriously trying to give your readers the sense there's a REAL scandal here instead of just another political witchhunt? No man, you gotta BURY that crap and hide it way further down in the story like this: Weisman's original opening sentence: What Peter's butchered it into way down in the 9th paragraph: See Johnathan? THAT'S how it's done, bro! You change it from 'senior Treasury officials', which reveals a bunch of top Administration people knew, to just the 'Treasury's general counsel', a single person. It's important to give the present administration as much cover as you can! Are you taking notes, bro? In the USSR's military, there was the military commander and then there was the 'Morale Officer' which is a kind way of saying Communist Party hack. The military commander would make decisions and then would have to run them by the Morale Officer first for approval. That often meant sound military decisions were changed and suborned to stupid party ideology. How is what Peters did to Weisman's article any different? Sound reporting was 'massaged' until it reflected Party Ideology. There is no way anybody can call that revised article anything but propaganda. Congratulations, media 'journalists' like those at the New York Times. You don't break news any more, you cover it up. You don't speak truth to power, you cover for The Power. How's it feel to be today's version of the USSR's Pravda? Since Jeremy Peters is on Twitter at @jwpetersNYT , how's about we all go tell him what a smashingly good job he did improving the article by burying the real news & interjecting a lot of political spin?
