Get PJ Media on your Apple

The PJ Tatler

by
Rick Moran

Bio

May 19, 2013 - 12:41 pm
Page 1 of 2  Next ->   View as Single Page

They’re right. The New York Times says so:

Overseen by a revolving cast of midlevel managers, stalled by miscommunication with I.R.S. lawyers and executives in Washington and confused about the rules they were enforcing, the Cincinnati specialists flagged virtually every application with Tea Party in its name. But their review went beyond conservative groups: more than 400 organizations came under scrutiny, including at least two dozen liberal-leaning ones and some that were seemingly apolitical.

You read it here first — unless there are a lot of people who read the New York Times. Daily Kos mentioned an article at Bloomberg that also referenced the IRS auditing liberal groups:

The Internal Revenue Service, under pressure after admitting it targeted anti-tax Tea Party groups for scrutiny in recent years, also had its eye on at least three Democratic-leaning organizations seeking nonprofit status.

Outrageous. Something should be done about this immediately. We must give equal victim status to liberals in this scandal. Justice demands no less.

Except no one cares very much what letter was sent to liberals or conservatives, nor does it really matter that out of more than 400 groups targeted by the IRS, about 5% appear to have been liberal.

Liberals are missing the point; it isn’t numbers, it’s the criteria used to single out applications for special scrutiny.

There were no key words like “tea party,” “patriot,” or “9/12 Project” that the IRS used to target certain liberal applications. “Liberal,” progressive,” and any other left-sounding words weren’t used to scrutinize applications.

Nor have we heard any complaints from liberal groups about the IRS asking for reading lists, donors’ names, the content of prayers, or clips from all mentions in the press of a particular group.

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
The IRS audits lots of individuals and businesses every year. That's not an issue if the audits are random or based on some objective, non-partisan criteria.

The issue here is whether political opponents of the president were singled out for special attention. They were.
47 weeks ago
47 weeks ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (33)
All Comments   (33)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
As the IRS has become the IRSTASI with the 501(c)(4)s, there is no evidence the exemption category can be done or functions other than a weapon. The 501(C)(4) exemption should be deleted.
47 weeks ago
47 weeks ago Link To Comment
"Liberals are missing the point; it isn’t numbers, it’s the criteria used to single out applications for special scrutiny."

It isn't even that. It's the fact an agency exists that has authority to give "special scrutiny" of this kind in the first place. It's the existence of the IRS and of a dysfunctional and untenable tax code that's the problem.

Criteria, shmiteria.
47 weeks ago
47 weeks ago Link To Comment
Well, I was around for Watergate, and so far this is tracking. It took quite a while for the pot to boil, but it was a steady drip...drip...drip. The guys who specialize in scandal supression tell you to throw it all out there as fast as possible, because it's the only way to stop the damage. But they aren't doing that. So why? Well, one hypothesis is pretty obvious...our President is up to his silly neck in necrotic fluids.
47 weeks ago
47 weeks ago Link To Comment
I think what's happend is President Irrelevant is reaping the downside to "plausible deniability." There is no one person in the Maladministration who knows all of what's been going on because everyone has been devoted to ensuring the little god-king himself never has dirt under his fingernails -- and apparently it hadn't occurred to any one of them that anybody else might be doing anything wrong too.

Top of the food chain, responsible for everything. Kinda sucks, if you don't know $#!+ about managing people.
47 weeks ago
47 weeks ago Link To Comment
Has pjmedia been attacked by a random noun-dropper? I find this sentence in this column: "Yet according to the , just one person was originally given the task of sifting through the applications deemed politically sensitive." I just found a similar omission in Theodore Dalrymple's column. And commented on it, yes. I'll be quite content if someone corrects the mistakes and deletes my annoying posts.
47 weeks ago
47 weeks ago Link To Comment
Looks like the Cincinati office that was uncerimouniously tossed under the bus have returned the favor:

http://washingtonexaminer.com/anonymous-cincinnati-irs-official-everything-comes-from-the-top./article/2530001

Interesting - I hope they were smart enough to save the 'directives' that gave them license to screw with conservative political action groups.

I guess the worker-bees aren't going alone into that dark night.
47 weeks ago
47 weeks ago Link To Comment
and the biggest joke is that people don't think that targeting conservative groups was political in nature.

Followed only by the person in charge of the division, now trying to tell us that she didn't know it was happening, but was running her division so well that very generous bonuses were given to her for her good work.

How do you have good work when your department is running amok and violating the laws, and not only do you keep your job, you get bonuses and then are promoted to head the IRS division of health care.
47 weeks ago
47 weeks ago Link To Comment
I was wondering when the victim-hood class would jump on the band-wagon.

We certainly didn't have long to wait did we?

I'm certain this is nothing more than an attempt by progressive organizations to water down the efficacy of the IRS's shameful actions.
47 weeks ago
47 weeks ago Link To Comment
GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT

The IRS took a distinctly un-American view of conservative, Tea Party and other groups. It had it bass ackwards.
The tax-exempt status should've been given. Then these groups could've been investigated or profiled to see if they broke the law. Instead they were assumed to be guilty from the outset.
The IRS then broke the law by denying these groups their rights under Citizens United.
47 weeks ago
47 weeks ago Link To Comment
I wonder how this tool General Ramen Noodle will explain away and enable the targeting of individuals on Obama's enemies list - the list where there is no dispute the donors were named by name on the Reelect Obama website?

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/your-world-cavuto/2013/05/15/romney-donor-claims-he-was-unfairly-targeted-irs
47 weeks ago
47 weeks ago Link To Comment
Yep. Front page NY Times; first to deflecft the damage. What else is new?
47 weeks ago
47 weeks ago Link To Comment
1 2 Next View All