A visit to history: the IRS targeting scandal: D.C. is the District of Corruption

Responses to NPR’s attempted takedown of the IRS scandal:

NPR-1–Most of the groups flagged by the IRS for extra scrutiny didn’t actually have to apply for tax-exempt status.

No kidding. And yet, instead of the supposedly “overworked” IRS reviewers actually telling them so, when they had “tea party” in their name (or “patriot” IIRC), they were instead sidetracked into the shelf labeled “Recycle instead of approve or disapprove (They can sue if we disapprove)”.

Bu then before Senator Lyndon B. Johnson snuck a “religious organizations” clause into the 501(c)3 language of the tax code, historically, no church was required to apply for exemption from such taxation, because they were considered constitutionally (and in court history) a priori non-taxable. Accountants and lawyers rushed in and scared the seminary students into applying to avoid prison. A pox on LBJ’s name.

NPR-2. Even if the right criteria had been used, 80 percent of the targeted groups would have warranted extra scrutiny.

That’s another red herring to distract from the fact that even Lois Lerner himself began this news cycle with the admission that the IRS reviewers she was responsible for had targeted a list of conservative trigger words to hold and divert instead of process per normal.

It is obviously the IRS ITSELF that “warrants extra scrutiny”, and Mother Jones magazine should give “extra scrutiny” to itself too.

NPR-3. Those intrusive questions that drew widespread criticism? Some of them are actually on the IRS application form.

Oh, weasel, weasel, weasel, slippery snakes. “Some”???! Really! how about telling the fact that MOST of them were “actually [NOT] on the IRS application form”. And you don’t specify whether talking about (c)3 or (c)4. Names of donors for example are NOT required for the 501(c)4 groups.

NPR-4 – Nonconservative groups got extra scrutiny, too. A lot of them.

Some, sure. They have to justify their budget, after all. And look at the one they chose as an example. One group’s name was “Alliance for a Better Utah”. That’s one of the 30 percent they say got extra work. It’s an ambiguous name that does not make clear the inclinations thereof.

Consider the following phrases that were used as trigger words to hold and hold some more, documented with footnotes. The progressive group for Utah, if it was progressive, just happened to pick a name that by chance was caught in the dragnet of the black hole for words that the IRS group considered as oppositional to Obama and his programs.

From wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRS_targeting_controversy

The list, first distributed in August 2010, suggested intensive scrutiny of applicants with names related to a number of political causes, including names related to the Tea Party movement and other conservative causes.[48] Eventually, IRS employees in at least Cincinnati, Ohio; El Monte, California; Laguna Niguel, California; and Washington, D.C.[49] applied closer scrutiny to applications from organizations that:[50][51][52]

–referenced words such as “Tea Party”, “Patriots”, or “9/12 Project”, “progressive,” “occupy,” “Israel,” “open source software,” “medical marijuana” and “occupied territory advocacy” in the case file;[47][48]
–outlined issues in the application that included government spending, government debt, or taxes;
–involved advocating or lobbying to “make America a better place to live”;
–had statements in the case file that criticized how the country is being run;
–advocated education about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights;
–were focused on challenging the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act—known by many as Obamacare;
–questioned the integrity of federal elections.

Hey, NPR, just like your defamatory lies about Honduras during 2009, you are entitled to your own opinions, but you are not entitled to make up fictions or lies-by-spin.

The eyes of the LORD are in every place, beholding the evil and the good.-Proverbs 15:3

Advertisements

%d bloggers like this: