In a February 2011 email, Ms. Lerner advised her staff—including then Exempt Organizations Technical Manager Michael Seto and then Rulings and Agreements director Holly Paz—that a Tea Party matter is "very dangerous," and is something "Counsel and [Lerner adviser] Judy Kindell need to be in on." Ms. Lerner adds, "Cincy should probably NOT have these cases."
Review & Outlook: Lois Lerner's Own Words - WSJ.com
what was the liberal argument again? oh yah "it wasn't politically motivated"
I guess you liberals need to come up with another line what this makes 3 now
rouge employees out of Cincy-- proven a lie
Washington wasn't involved--proven a lie
it wasn't politically motivated--just got proven wrong
so im very interested to see the new line you liberals will come up with next to try to explain the unlawful IRS targeting of tea party groups
lastly who politically had the most to gain from the targeting? it wasn't Lois Lerner or any IRS employees they are not elected they have jobs no matter who is in the WH
Review & Outlook: Lois Lerner's Own Words - WSJ.com
what was the liberal argument again? oh yah "it wasn't politically motivated"
I guess you liberals need to come up with another line what this makes 3 now
rouge employees out of Cincy-- proven a lie
Washington wasn't involved--proven a lie
it wasn't politically motivated--just got proven wrong
so im very interested to see the new line you liberals will come up with next to try to explain the unlawful IRS targeting of tea party groups
lastly who politically had the most to gain from the targeting? it wasn't Lois Lerner or any IRS employees they are not elected they have jobs no matter who is in the WH
Review & Outlook: Lois Lerner's Own Words - WSJ.com
what was the liberal argument again? oh yah "it wasn't politically motivated"
I guess you liberals need to come up with another line what this makes 3 now
rouge employees out of Cincy-- proven a lie
Washington wasn't involved--proven a lie
it wasn't politically motivated--just got proven wrong
so im very interested to see the new line you liberals will come up with next to try to explain the unlawful IRS targeting of tea party groups
lastly who politically had the most to gain from the targeting? it wasn't Lois Lerner or any IRS employees they are not elected they have jobs no matter who is in the WH
Every premise pushed by this piece is a focused lie using selective quoting to promote a specific idea. The idea that the IRS focused solely on right wing groups attempting to circumvent the rules. But reality has never been all that important to some folks, now has it?
Review & Outlook: Lois Lerner's Own Words - WSJ.com
what was the liberal argument again? oh yah "it wasn't politically motivated"
I guess you liberals need to come up with another line what this makes 3 now
rouge employees out of Cincy-- proven a lie
Washington wasn't involved--proven a lie
it wasn't politically motivated--just got proven wrong
so im very interested to see the new line you liberals will come up with next to try to explain the unlawful IRS targeting of tea party groups
lastly who politically had the most to gain from the targeting? it wasn't Lois Lerner or any IRS employees they are not elected they have jobs no matter who is in the WH
wsj said:The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee had complained to the Federal Election Commission that conservative groups like Crossroads GPS and Americans for Prosperity should be treated as political committees, rather than 501(c)(4)s, which are tax-exempt social welfare groups that do not have to disclose their donors.
Another socialist who won't read anything that may interfere with deeply held beliefs.
But is there any other kind?
Since a non-profit status can be achieved via the 527 tax code, why did the political organizations choose 501 c4? Well, the answer lies in the story you posted:
http://www.lawprofessorblogs.com/taxprof/linkdocs/2005-3455-1.pdf
"Perhaps the FEC will save the day," Ms. Lerner wrote back later that morning.
That response suggests Ms. Lerner's political leanings, and it also raises questions about Ms. Lerner's intentions in a separate email exchange she had when an FEC investigator inquired about the status of the conservative group the American Future Fund. The FEC and IRS don't have the authority to share that information under section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code. But the bigger question is why did they want to? After the FEC inquiry, the American Future Fund also got a questionnaire from the IRS.
It is clear what Lerner meant by "saving the day", isn't it? Is this how you really want the powerful IRS, and other bureaucracies, to behave? Are you not considering what the future may hold if these bureaucracies gain too much power over American citizens? This is very, very short-sighted.
What's clear to me is that the political groups sought 501 c4 rather than 527 IRS status because they don't want their donors known.It is clear what Lerner meant by "saving the day", isn't it? Is this how you really want the powerful IRS, and other bureaucracies, to behave? Are you not considering what the future may hold if these bureaucracies gain too much power over American citizens? This is very, very short-sighted.
What's clear to me is that the political groups sought 501 c4 rather than 527 IRS status because they don't want their donors known.
What's clear to me is that the political groups sought 501 c4 rather than 527 IRS status because they don't want their donors known.
do you blame them you seen what happened when Romneys donors was made public they where attacked by Obamas henchman
I want you to explain how Obama for America the Obama campaign organization. after the election changed their name to Organizing for Action and received the 501c4 status within months? And don't you dare try to say Organizing for Action is not political hell they are using the Obama campaign symbol has his picture on the first page of their web site and are doing nothing but promoting Obamas agenda
Barack Obamawill you look at that even there web address has Obamas name in it
so you need to stop your foolish BS right now no one is believing your crap
Another socialist who won't read anything that may interfere with deeply held beliefs.
But is there any other kind?
But I think he really believes it and there are millions more like him. How can any country survive this sort of deliberate devotion and blindness? His response is what you might expect in North Korea.
Another fascist who ignores what is actually being said by people who disagree with him.
However, is there any other kind?
Another fascist who ignores what is actually being said by people who disagree with him.
However, is there any other kind?
Another fascist who ignores what is actually being said by people who disagree with him.
However, is there any other kind?
do you blame them you seen what happened when Romneys donors was made public they where attacked by Obamas henchman
I want you to explain how Obama for America the Obama campaign organization. after the election changed their name to Organizing for Action and received the 501c4 status within months? And don't you dare try to say Organizing for Action is not political hell they are using the Obama campaign symbol has his picture on the first page of their web site and are doing nothing but promoting Obamas agenda
Barack Obama
will you look at that even there web address has Obamas name in it
so you need to stop with your foolish BS right now because no one is believing your crap
I am not going to try to justify what Obama did with his organization because I don't know the rules or exactly what his organization does. It's very possible his organization should not have gotten the non profit status, but I don't know.
Here's my feling on the subject:
1. I don't believe the IRS should be in the business of determining whether and organization is political or not. Either they are or they arn't.
I am not going to try to justify what Obama did with his organization because I don't know the rules or exactly what his organization does. It's very possible his organization should not have gotten the non profit status, but I don't know.
Here's my feling on the subject:
1. I don't believe the IRS should be in the business of determining whether and organization is political or not. Either they are or they arn't.
2. Donors to political campaigns should not be able to do it anonymously.
Wealthy businessman Frank VanderSloot, a major Mitt Romney super PAC donor who was subjected to three federal agency audits after being slimed by the Obama campaign, says he isn’t the only one of his peers who was audited after donating to Romney.
VanderSloot, who was also national co-chair of the Romney campaign’s finance committee, was described in an April 2012 Obama campaign Web posting as one of eight “wealthy individuals with less-than-reputable records.”
Shortly after the post appeared, VanderSloot was subjected to two Internal Revenue Service audits — one focusing on his personal finances, the other related to his business interests — and a Labor Department audit of one of his businesses. When asked about whether any of the other seven donors who appeared on the list were audited as well, VanderSloot spoke cautiously, but did say he “wasn’t the only one.
The right has become bereft of originality or any meaningful critical thought. They are programmed to defend fascist policies no matter the consequences, or how their credibility might suffer. No pride remains.
the deliberate dumbing down of america - A Chronological Paper Trail: A Chronological Paper Trail: Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt, Charlotte Iserbyt-Thomson, cynthia weatherly, joel pett: 9780966707106: Amazon.com: Books
Obama had the most to gain... obviously.Review & Outlook: Lois Lerner's Own Words - WSJ.com
what was the liberal argument again? oh yah "it wasn't politically motivated"
I guess you liberals need to come up with another line what this makes 3 now
rouge employees out of Cincy-- proven a lie
Washington wasn't involved--proven a lie
it wasn't politically motivated--just got proven wrong
so im very interested to see the new line you liberals will come up with next to try to explain the unlawful IRS targeting of tea party groups
lastly who politically had the most to gain from the targeting? it wasn't Lois Lerner or any IRS employees they are not elected they have jobs no matter who is in the WH
A party that send troops to war and then stabs them in the back, both actions for political expediency, is not a party you can expect much from in the area of morals and truth.do you blame them you seen what happened when Romneys donors was made public they where attacked by Obamas henchman
I want you to explain how Obama for America the Obama campaign organization. after the election changed their name to Organizing for Action and received the 501c4 status within months? And don't you dare try to say Organizing for Action is not political hell they are using the Obama campaign symbol has his picture on the first page of their web site and are doing nothing but promoting Obamas agenda
Barack Obama
will you look at that even there web address has Obamas name in it
so you need to stop with your foolish BS right now because no one is believing your crap
A party that send troops to war and then stabs them in the back, both actions for political expediency, is not a party you can expect much from in the area of morals and truth.
The only way to reach some of these Socialists, and you won't reach pbrauer, is to poke a stick in their eye repeatedly. Or, like a puppy that dropped a log on the carpet, you've got to bring doggie to doo and say... noooooooooooooooooooooooooooo... right away... so they might learn.
That's the only hope, but even then it is useless. They just keep defending the dropp'in, even when it's plain for all to see.
On second thought, the stick in the eye isn't enough, and once isn't enough... you need a javelin, and it need to go in and out like a jack hammer... as if it's being propelled by hydraulics. After about 5-years here it's obvious... rationale doesn't work well.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?