Great Article Explaining Obama's Fault with the IRS Scandal

[Townhallsavoy]

Was the White House involved in the IRS's targeting of conservatives? No investigation needed to answer that one. Of course it was.

President Obama and Co. are in full deniability mode, noting that the IRS is an "independent" agency and that they knew nothing about its abuse. The media and Congress are sleuthing for some hint that Mr. Obama picked up the phone and sicced the tax dogs on his enemies.

But that's not how things work in post-Watergate Washington. Mr. Obama didn't need to pick up the phone. All he needed to do was exactly what he did do, in full view, for three years: Publicly suggest that conservative political groups were engaged in nefarious deeds; publicly call out by name political opponents whom he'd like to see harassed; and publicly have his party pressure the IRS to take action.

Mr. Obama now professes shock and outrage that bureaucrats at the IRS did exactly what the president of the United States said was the right and honorable thing to do. "He put a target on our backs, and he's now going to blame the people who are shooting at us?" asks Idaho businessman and longtime Republican donor Frank VanderSloot.

Enlarge Image

Getty Images
At the White House, President Obama addresses the IRS scandal, May 15.

Mr. VanderSloot is the Obama target who in 2011 made a sizable donation to a group supporting Mitt Romney. In April 2012, an Obama campaign website named and slurred eight Romney donors. It tarred Mr. VanderSloot as a "wealthy individual" with a "less-than-reputable record." Other donors were described as having been "on the wrong side of the law."

This was the Obama version of the phone call—put out to every government investigator (and liberal activist) in the land.

Twelve days later, a man working for a political opposition-research firm called an Idaho courthouse for Mr. VanderSloot's divorce records. In June, the IRS informed Mr. VanderSloot and his wife of an audit of two years of their taxes. In July, the Department of Labor informed him of an audit of the guest workers on his Idaho cattle ranch. In September, the IRS informed him of a second audit, of one of his businesses. Mr. VanderSloot, who had never been audited before, was subject to three in the four months after Mr. Obama teed him up for such scrutiny.

The last of these audits was only concluded in recent weeks. Not one resulted in a fine or penalty. But Mr. VanderSloot has been waiting more than 20 months for a sizable refund and estimates his legal bills are $80,000. That figure doesn't account for what the president's vilification has done to his business and reputation.

The Obama call for scrutiny wasn't a mistake; it was the president's strategy—one pursued throughout 2012. The way to limit Romney money was to intimidate donors from giving. Donate, and the president would at best tie you to Big Oil or Wall Street, at worst put your name in bold, and flag you as "less than reputable" to everyone who worked for him: the IRS, the SEC, the Justice Department. The president didn't need a telephone; he had a megaphone.

The same threat was made to conservative groups that might dare play in the election. As early as January 2010, Mr. Obama would, in his state of the union address, cast aspersions on the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling, claiming that it "reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests" (read conservative groups).

The president derided "tea baggers." Vice President Joe Biden compared them to "terrorists." In more than a dozen speeches Mr. Obama raised the specter that these groups represented nefarious interests that were perverting elections. "Nobody knows who's paying for these ads," he warned. "We don't know where this money is coming from," he intoned.

In case the IRS missed his point, he raised the threat of illegality: "All around this country there are groups with harmless-sounding names like Americans for Prosperity, who are running millions of dollars of ads against Democratic candidates . . . And they don't have to say who exactly the Americans for Prosperity are. You don't know if it's a foreign-controlled corporation."

Short of directly asking federal agencies to investigate these groups, this is as close as it gets. Especially as top congressional Democrats were putting in their own versions of phone calls, sending letters to the IRS that accused it of having "failed to address" the "problem" of groups that were "improperly engaged" in campaigns. Because guess who controls that "independent" agency's budget?

The IRS is easy to demonize, but it doesn't exist in a vacuum. It got its heading from a president, and his party, who did in fact send it orders—openly, for the world to see. In his Tuesday press grilling, no question agitated White House Press Secretary Jay Carney more than the one that got to the heart of the matter: Given the president's "animosity" toward Citizens United, might he have "appreciated or wanted the IRS to be looking and scrutinizing those . . ." Mr. Carney cut off the reporter with "That's a preposterous assertion."

Preposterous because, according to Mr. Obama, he is "outraged" and "angry" that the IRS looked into the very groups and individuals that he spent years claiming were shady, undemocratic, even lawbreaking. After all, he expects the IRS to "operate with absolute integrity." Even when he does not.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324767004578487332636180800.html

[Townhallsavoy]

This is the main reason why I don't like Barack Obama or the members of his administration. 

It's the "Attackwatch" websites.  The "If I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon" comments.  The listing of Mitt Romney donors and portraying them as less than reputable people.  The bringing Sandy Hook victims to the podium to push a gun restriction agenda.  The audacity to call out specific Republicans when his ideas aren't accepted by as he would say the "American people." 

I've said before that he's the most divisive president in the history of the United States.  I don't know if his policies will truly hurt us or not but I do know that we're going to have a long rebuilding project when it comes to reuniting the citizens of this country. 

[AUChizad]

I've said before that he's the most divisive president in the history of the United States.  I don't know if his policies will truly hurt us or not but I do know that we're going to have a long rebuilding project when it comes to reuniting the citizens of this country.

I think you're right, as it seems that the extremes seem to be stronger, and more evenly divided than Bush. If Obama farts, roughly 50% of the country want to waft it into their faces and have a tantric orgasm, while the other 50% want to see him impeached for committing such a disgusting act while in the oval office. Unfortunately, in my lifetime (since I've been old enough to pay attention), it seems to be a snowball effect. With Clinton, it was "Don't Blame Me - I Voted For Bush", then the Lewinsky scandal hit, and everyone started demanding impeachment. I think Democrats harbored ill-will for that witch hunt, so when Bush was in office, he was a baby eating monster. Everything ratcheted up a notch. People like Michael Moore & Cindy Sheehan emerged. Then Obama came around and he's a Muslim Socialist tyrant without a birth certificate.

Based on the trend I've witnessed, I don't feel good about whoever proceeds Obama, whether it be Democrat or Republican. 50% of the country will viciously hate him (or her) no matter who it is. I think it's more a symptom of where we are as a country than the acts of these presidents themselves. Possibly the fact that we now have Fox News brainwashing half the country and MSNBC brainwashing the other half. News doesn't even pretend to be unbiased anymore. And it's on a 24-hour cycle. I think that's negatively affecting America's political psyche. Let alone when you add shit like Infowars, MoveOn.org, etc. feeding the fringe. Now it's all about being purely outraged with everything the other side suggests. It's exhausting. Maybe it's because I was too young to really understand politics, but I never remember it being like that pre-Bush.

Just another stream of consciousness. I think it's interesting, but completely depressing. I think we're heading for a collapse with this behavior.

[GH2001]

I think you're right, as it seems that the extremes seem to be stronger, and more evenly divided than Bush. If Obama farts, roughly 50% of the country want to waft it into their faces and have a tantric orgasm, while the other 50% want to see him impeached for committing such a disgusting act while in the oval office. Unfortunately, in my lifetime (since I've been old enough to pay attention), it seems to be a snowball effect. With Clinton, it was "Don't Blame Me - I Voted For Bush", then the Lewinsky scandal hit, and everyone started demanding impeachment. I think Democrats harbored ill-will for that witch hunt, so when Bush was in office, he was a baby eating monster. Everything ratcheted up a notch. People like Michael Moore & Cindy Sheehan emerged. Then Obama came around and he's a Muslim Socialist tyrant without a birth certificate.

Based on the trend I've witnessed, I don't feel good about whoever proceeds Obama, whether it be Democrat or Republican. 50% of the country will viciously hate him (or her) no matter who it is. I think it's more a symptom of where we are as a country than the acts of these presidents themselves. Possibly the fact that we now have Fox News brainwashing half the country and MSNBC brainwashing the other half. News doesn't even pretend to be unbiased anymore. And it's on a 24-hour cycle. I think that's negatively affecting America's political psyche. Let alone when you add shit like Infowars, MoveOn.org, etc. feeding the fringe. Now it's all about being purely outraged with everything the other side suggests. It's exhausting. Maybe it's because I was too young to really understand politics, but I never remember it being like that pre-Bush.

Just another stream of consciousness. I think it's interesting, but completely depressing. I think we're heading for a collapse with this behavior.

I was in college and started working during the Clinton years. For some reason he just doesnt bother me like Obama does. The democratic party has just went so far out there since then. Clinton at least had sense enough to not come off as a bumbling idiot with no clue and at least looked pragmatic. Enough to where people liked him and were behind him. Despite the bumper stickers you saw he was still pretty popular. You mainly saw those in the first two years of his 8 when things weren't good. From 94-2000 things were peachy. He had sense enough to let Newt make him look good with the balanced budget/contract with America.

This guy we have now? Him and Bush both have done nothing but act like bumbling morons who are in over their heads and both polarized the entire populace. I take a lot of heat from people for my criticism of Bush. Sure he kept us safe. But what else? 2 unneeded wars, bigger govt, prescription drug plan, bailouts, tarp, no child left behind, questionable aspects in patriot act, TSA/homeland security.

I'd take Reagan or Clinton anyday over either of these fools for various reasons. They at least looked and acted like leaders, their own faults aside.

[Saniflush]

I think you're right, as it seems that the extremes seem to be stronger, and more evenly divided than Bush. If Obama farts, roughly 50% of the country want to waft it into their faces and have a tantric orgasm, while the other 50% want to see him impeached for committing such a disgusting act while in the oval office. Unfortunately, in my lifetime (since I've been old enough to pay attention), it seems to be a snowball effect. With Clinton, it was "Don't Blame Me - I Voted For Bush", then the Lewinsky scandal hit, and everyone started demanding impeachment. I think Democrats harbored ill-will for that witch hunt, so when Bush was in office, he was a baby eating monster. Everything ratcheted up a notch. People like Michael Moore & Cindy Sheehan emerged. Then Obama came around and he's a Muslim Socialist tyrant without a birth certificate.

Based on the trend I've witnessed, I don't feel good about whoever proceeds Obama, whether it be Democrat or Republican. 50% of the country will viciously hate him (or her) no matter who it is. I think it's more a symptom of where we are as a country than the acts of these presidents themselves. Possibly the fact that we now have Fox News brainwashing half the country and MSNBC brainwashing the other half. News doesn't even pretend to be unbiased anymore. And it's on a 24-hour cycle. I think that's negatively affecting America's political psyche. Let alone when you add shit like Infowars, MoveOn.org, etc. feeding the fringe. Now it's all about being purely outraged with everything the other side suggests. It's exhausting. Maybe it's because I was too young to really understand politics, but I never remember it being like that pre-Bush.

Just another stream of consciousness. I think it's interesting, but completely depressing. I think we're heading for a collapse with this behavior.

Watch it!  You almost beginning to sound non-beta

[CCTAU]

I was in college and started working during the Clinton years. For some reason he just doesnt bother me like Obama does. The democratic party has just went so far out there since then. From 94-2000 things were peachy. He had sense enough to let Newt make him look good with the balanced budget/contract with America.

This was when I started too. Clinton rode the dot.com wave and acted like HE did it all. He got off the wave just as it crashed.

I'd take Reagan or Clinton anyday over either of these fools for various reasons. They at least looked and acted like leaders, their own faults aside.

I'm afraid Clinton today would be almost as bad. There is no Newt to keep the POTUS in check. I miss Newt.

[bottomfeeder]

A summary without Cliff Notes:

100 Percent FED Up
In case you are not watching the IRS hearings, here is a quick summary: The IRS didn't really target conservative groups and by the way... if they did, it's because the Republicans are not allowing them to hire more people. In other words the response from the Democrats in attendance....If we had more money from the taxpayers, the IRS wouldn't be targeting taxpayers.

[Vandy Vol]

There were tons of Tea Party groups that applied for 501(c)(3) non-profit status when they had no business doing so.  Some were intentionally trying to cheat the system, while others were too naive to know any better.  Since 2009, more than 3,500 affiliates of the Tea Party Patriots have popped up, and many of those applied for non-profit status.  Some of those people were business/non-profit newbies that just wanted to jump on the Tea Party bandwagon that was booming.  Others were intentionally looking for ways to avoid taxes while supporting their political party.

With that being said, there are probably just as many liberal leaning political organizations that have applied for non-profit status, yet should not be granted non-profit status due to their level of political involvement.  I can give Obama a pass for only calling out conservative groups, as he is, afterall, a politician who is a Democrat.  The I.R.S., on the other hand, should have never enforced their authority in such a way so as to target one political party and not the other.  If you've got a known problem with these political activist groups and you want to target them for audit, that's fine, but don't target one political party and not the other.

[Townhallsavoy]

There were tons of Tea Party groups that applied for 501(c)(3) non-profit status when they had no business doing so.  Some were intentionally trying to cheat the system, while others were too naive to know any better.  Since 2009, more than 3,500 affiliates of the Tea Party Patriots have popped up, and many of those applied for non-profit status.  Some of those people were business/non-profit newbies that just wanted to jump on the Tea Party bandwagon that was booming.  Others were intentionally looking for ways to avoid taxes while supporting their political party.

With that being said, there are probably just as many liberal leaning political organizations that have applied for non-profit status, yet should not be granted non-profit status due to their level of political involvement.  I can give Obama a pass for only calling out conservative groups, as he is, afterall, a politician who is a Democrat.  The I.R.S., on the other hand, should have never enforced their authority in such a way so as to target one political party and not the other.  If you've got a known problem with these political activist groups and you want to target them for audit, that's fine, but don't target one political party and not the other.

What was the IRS's motivation to target one and not the other?  Why pick the right when they could have easily picked the left?

[AUTailgatingRules]

I fully support and respect the IRS in all that they do  (just in case they are watching)

[bottomfeeder]

I fully support and respect the IRS in all that they do  (just in case they are watching)

MOTHER#### the IRS.

[AWK]

MOTHER#### the IRS.

motherlove.

[Vandy Vol]

What was the IRS's motivation to target one and not the other?  Why pick the right when they could have easily picked the left?

Asking what the I.R.S.'s motivation was is to first assume that the agency acted as a whole in some fashion.  The I.R.S.'s organization is fucked up.  One or two service centers across the United States may oversee one particular function, such as reviewing offers in compromise or performing correspondence audits.

If you've got enough jackasses in positions of authority (which the I.R.S. does), and if jackasses of similar mindsets are hired or transferred to the Memphis service center, for example, then roughly half of the entire nation's offer in compromise applications are getting fucked.  All because of a handful of people who happen to be employed at one of the few service centers that handle a particular function.

Of course, I have no clue what actually happened.  It could have been a hand penned note written in the form of a haiku from (former) Commissioner Miller to every employee of the I.R.S. in an agency-wide effort to butt rape conservatives.

My only real point was that the I.R.S. had no business targeting one political party.  They had every right to audit all political non-profits, regardless of affiliation, due to an increasing number of these political companies being revealed to be ineligible for non-profit status, but not target just one party.

[AUChizad]

My only real point was that the I.R.S. had no business targeting one political party.  They had every right to audit all political non-profits, regardless of affiliation, due to an increasing number of these political companies being revealed to be ineligible for non-profit status, but not target just one party.

Hence the scandal.

[bottomfeeder]

Good video of the IRS commissioner getting ripped.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/05/17/gop_congressman_mike_kelly_receives_standing_ovation_after_he_rips_irs_commissioner.html

REP. MIKE KELLY (R-PA): This has nothing to do with political parties. This has to do with highly targeted groups. This reconfirms everything the American public believes. This is a huge blow to the faith and trust that the American people have in their government. Is there any limit to the scope where you folks can go? Is there anything at all? Is there any way that we could ask you is there any question that you should have asked?

My goodness. How much money do you have in your wallet? Who do you get emails from? Whose sign do you put up in your front yard? This is a tax question? And you don't think that's intimidating? It's sure as hell intimidating. And I don't know that I got any answers from you today. And I don't know that -- what Mr. George said is great work -- but you know what? There's a heck of a lot more that has to come out in this. Any anybody that sat here today and listened to what you had to say, I am more concerned today than I was before, and the fact that you all can do just about anything you want to anybody?

You know, you can put anybody out of business that you want. Any time you want. I gotta tell you. You could talk about how you're a horribly run organization, if you're on the other side of the fence, you're not giving that excuse. And the IRS comes in, you're not allowed to be shoddy, you're not allowed to be run horribly, you're not allowed to make mistakes, you're not allowed to do one damn thing that doesn't come in compliance, and if you do, you're held responsible right then. I just think the American people have seen what's going on right now in their government. This is absolutely an overreach and this is an outrage for all Americans.

And why I wear tinfoil hats.



I DON'T KNOW    âˆž



Fucking idiots.

FUCK THE GOVERNMENT. I don't have anything for them to take, so fuck  'em all in the ass.