What Fresh Hell Is This?

January 28, 2014

Vile? Who's Being Vile?

It's vile to repeatedly lie to your readers.  But that's what Scaife's braintrust at the Tribune-Review continues to do.  Take a look at this:
What would the reaction have been among Democrats if, during the administration of George W. Bush, the Senate's No. 3 Republican leader had spoken before The Heritage Foundation and publicly sicced the Internal Revenue Service on Democrats, urging it to harass them for raising campaign money according to the law?

Make no mistake, Democrats would have called for that senator's resignation, urged the appointment of a special prosecutor and begun beating the drums for Mr. Bush's impeachment.

Yet, Sen. Chuck Schumer behaved in just that greasy manner last week. Speaking before the “progressive” Center for American Progress, the New York Democrat called on the IRS to promulgate new rules to effectively silence the tea party.

The law of the land be damned and all too willing to engage in an act of official oppression, Schumer now wants the IRS — already exposed for harassing conservative groups and openly being protected from criminal prosecution by the Justice Department — to ramp up its illegal behavior.
Ah, that again.  The IRS was "already exposed for harassing conservative groups" wasn't it?

Not entirely.  Remember this?  Here's the important stuff Scaife's braintrust isn't telling it's readers:
Despite an admission by the I.R.S. that it inappropriately targeted conservative groups, by searching for groups with the words “Tea Party” or “Patriots” in their names, many legal experts and law enforcement officials say they do not believe that the scrutiny broke the law. Some members of Congress had called for the Justice Department to investigate the tax-collecting agency. The Wall Street Journal was the first to report Monday that criminal charges were unlikely.

I.R.S. documents show the agency gave the same scrutiny to some liberal groups, using the key words “Progressive” and “Occupy.”
And what did Senator Schumer actually say about the IRS in his speech to the Center for American Progress?  Take a look.  There are exactly two mentions of the IRS and here they are:
Beyond issues, the third way we can constructively channel frustrations is to address the damage done by the Supreme Court’s Citizen United decision. One of the great advantages the Tea Party has is the huge holes in our campaign finance laws created this ill-advised decision. Obviously, the Tea Party elites gained extraordinary influence by being able to funnel millions of dollars into campaigns with ads that distort the truth and attack government.

This is not the place for a broad discussion of this issue, and it is clear that we will not pass anything legislatively as long as the House of Representatives is in Republican control, but there are many things that can be done administratively by the IRS and other government agencies – we must redouble those efforts immediately.

Tea Party members realize importance of this issue. In the recent budget negotiations House Republicans nearly blew up the entire agreement because we would not put in the bill a provision that would prevent the IRS from moving forward and administratively closing some of the Citizens United loopholes. [Emphasis added.]
That's it.  Somehow that last part became, to my friends on the braintrust, this:
[Schumer] called on the IRS to promulgate new rules to effectively silence the tea party.
If closing those loopholes can be done "administratively" doesn't that mean those rules are already in place?  And doesn't that mean that it was the House Republicans who wanted to "promulgate new rules" regarding the IRS?

To continue to say the IRS targeted conservative groups without also saying that it targeted liberal groups is a lie.  To build any argument on that lie is to continue that lie.

To not inform your readers of the whole truth is a lie.

And that's vile.

7 comments:

Heir to the Throne said...

the IRS targeted conservative groups without also saying that it targeted liberal groups is a lie.
Just ignore the 150+ vs. 5.

Ol' Froth said...

How many conservatives groups were denined tax exempt status Heir? How many liberal groups were denied tax exempt status?

Now, part the second: How many conservative advocacy groups were created in the wake of Citizens United, as compared to liberal advocacy groups?

Heir to the Throne said...

The IRS is not willing to release that information. I believe True the Vote applied in 2010 and finally got IRS 501(c)(3)Status after the 2012 election in 2013

Obama’s IRS scandal: Stonewalling is not exoneration

The IRS released the documents in response to a court order that Tax Analysts managed to obtain after the IRS had exhausted every excuse it could think of to delay – I was waiting for “the dog ate my homework” – and continued its whining over how mean we were being in asking it to be transparent to the American people. This is the third installment of documents – documents that are training materials – that the IRS has released and, generally, they haven’t been awfully helpful. And we believe that the odds are good that the IRS’s response to a document request that the agency itself agreed was important enough to get “expedited” treatment is not really a response at all.

Ol' Froth said...

The information HAS been released Heir. Not a single conservative group that applied for 501(c)4 (NOT (c)3 which is a different type of non-profit) status were denied that status, and since they could operate as tax exempt until a final ruling was issued, they weren't harmed at all. The ONLY group to have its status denied was a Democratic one. http://www.salon.com/2013/05/15/meet_the_group_the_irs_actually_revoked_democrats/

Heir to the Throne said...

Article by Joan Walsh
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

http://www.qando.net/?p=6355
The climate right now is that Republicans use everything they can to undermine and delegitimize this president. And it’s actually un-American. It’s traitorous, in my opinion. Do you want to give aid and comfort to our enemies? Continue to treat this president like he wasn’t elected and he doesn’t know what he’s doing! He knows what he did. He knows what he’s doing. I’m proud of him. I believe that he has the stalwart, resolute nature to get this done…

http://www.brendan-nyhan.com/blog/2010/01/walsh-smears-antiobama-dissent-as-traitorous.html
The president who lost the popular vote in 2000 nonetheless ruled as one of the most radical leaders in U.S. history. The president who got a chance to start over, with wide popular support, in the wake of 9/11 instead ruled as the bully-in-chief, presiding over a regime that made dissent synonymous with treason.

Which one covers the teabaggers
Civic Leagues, Social Welfare Organizations, and Local Associations of Employees

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/501%28c%29_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
501(c)(4) — Civic Leagues, Social Welfare Organizations, and Local Associations of Employees

Ol' Froth said...

I have no idea what you're trying to convey in your latest. Now again...How many Teabagger groups were denied tax-exempt status? How were they harmed?

Heir to the Throne said...

The author of your proof that Tea party 501(c3) were not targeted is a hypocritical Democrat hack.
How dare the un-American traitorous Republicians make dissent synonymous with treason.
From your article before the Democrat decided that denying and stonewalling was the way to address it.
"Although Tea Party applicants got unfair IRS scrutiny"
Donate to the 501(c3) even if the IRS has not approved the tax status for it.