How did that jerk that was stalking Lois Lerner on private property get away with doing that?!! Have

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

They are political groups that have candidates for political office who run under their "tea party" banner. They should be audited. They should be asked questions.

Then why didn't they just deny them?

Because there is a possibility that some of them may really have been social groups and so they got flagged for review instead of being denied outright.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

They are political groups that have candidates for political office who run under their "tea party" banner. They should be audited. They should be asked questions.

Then why didn't they just deny them?

Because there is a possibility that some of them may really have been social groups and so they got flagged for review instead of being denied outright.

And, NONE of them were approved prior to the election. It took 3 years for a review?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

They are political groups that have candidates for political office who run under their "tea party" banner. They should be audited. They should be asked questions.

Then why didn't they just deny them?

Because there is a possibility that some of them may really have been social groups and so they got flagged for review instead of being denied outright.

This is complete BS - you have fallen for Obama’s claim that there was not a “smidgeon of corruption.”
Lerner herself, admitted it was wrong (not under oath, mind you, because she is a coward):

"Instead of referring to the cases as advocacy cases, they actually used case names on this list," Lerner said, according to a transcript of the meeting. "They used names like Tea Party or Patriots and they selected cases simply because the applications had those names in the title. That was wrong, that was absolutely incorrect, insensitive, and inappropriate -- that's not how we go about selecting cases for further review."

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/irs-official-s-admission-baffled-audience-at-tax-panel

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

They are political groups that have candidates for political office who run under their "tea party" banner. They should be audited. They should be asked questions.

Then why didn't they just deny them?

Because there is a possibility that some of them may really have been social groups and so they got flagged for review instead of being denied outright.

This is complete BS - you have fallen for Obama’s claim that there was not a “smidgeon of corruption.”
Lerner herself, admitted it was wrong (not under oath, mind you, because she is a coward):

"Instead of referring to the cases as advocacy cases, they actually used case names on this list," Lerner said, according to a transcript of the meeting. "They used names like Tea Party or Patriots and they selected cases simply because the applications had those names in the title. That was wrong, that was absolutely incorrect, insensitive, and inappropriate -- that's not how we go about selecting cases for further review."

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/irs-official-s-admission-baffled-audience-at-tax-panel

They never should have apologized. Obama apologized too fast. It may have been "insensitive", but it is perfectly logical, just as it was logical to have "progressive" as a keyword to search. They had a flood of political groups trying to get tax free status.

[Anonymous]

^^ Not insensitive. Try “illegal.”

[Anonymous]

Hilarious! The sheer number of attacks on the people of tbis country and tbe free press should make a reasoned person sit up and take notice

The amount of Obama sycophants is astounding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hilarious! The sheer number of attacks on the people of tbis country and tbe free press should make a reasoned person sit up and take notice

The amount of Obama sycophants is astounding.

Right. We will spend every primary and election cycle talking about the tea party, whether they are gaining or losing influence. But hey, they should be 501 c 4's.

You may have suckered Obama into an apology. Lord knows even conservatives accuse him of apologizing too fast. But you aren't getting it from me. There is no conceivable way that the Tea Party is a slam dunk for 501 c 4 status. No way. You know it, and I know it. If you can't prove otherwise, then apology or not, you are wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hilarious! The sheer number of attacks on the people of tbis country and tbe free press should make a reasoned person sit up and take notice

The amount of Obama sycophants is astounding.

Right. We will spend every primary and election cycle talking about the tea party, whether they are gaining or losing influence. But hey, they should be 501 c 4's.

You may have suckered Obama into an apology. Lord knows even conservatives accuse him of apologizing too fast. But you aren't getting it from me. There is no conceivable way that the Tea Party is a slam dunk for 501 c 4 status. No way. You know it, and I know it. If you can't prove otherwise, then apology or not, you are wrong.

So, I guess you would agree that THIS organization should not get 501 c4 status, even though they are approved for it:

Americans United for Change
Americans United for Change enjoys 501(c)4 tax-exempt status. The organization exists, according to its own website, “to amplify the progressive message--to contribute to a grass roots groundswell for progressive policies. Progressives need to redefine ‘common sense’--by reasserting the primacy of the traditional progressive values that resonate with most Americans.”
The group spent $4.7 million in 2009 “redefining” common sense and, according to their IRS form 990, on “advocacy and education about public policy issues.” Americans United for Change directly engaged Republican senators facing reelection in 2008, running television advertisements against them. Naturally, no Democrat complained. Nor did the IRS revoke its 501(c) status.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/06/04/Leftist-Groups-Enjoy-IRS-Tax-Exempt-Status-While-Tea-Party-Suffers

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hilarious! The sheer number of attacks on the people of tbis country and tbe free press should make a reasoned person sit up and take notice

The amount of Obama sycophants is astounding.

Right. We will spend every primary and election cycle talking about the tea party, whether they are gaining or losing influence. But hey, they should be 501 c 4's.

You may have suckered Obama into an apology. Lord knows even conservatives accuse him of apologizing too fast. But you aren't getting it from me. There is no conceivable way that the Tea Party is a slam dunk for 501 c 4 status. No way. You know it, and I know it. If you can't prove otherwise, then apology or not, you are wrong.

So, I guess you would agree that THIS organization should not get 501 c4 status, even though they are approved for it:

Americans United for Change
Americans United for Change enjoys 501(c)4 tax-exempt status. The organization exists, according to its own website, “to amplify the progressive message--to contribute to a grass roots groundswell for progressive policies. Progressives need to redefine ‘common sense’--by reasserting the primacy of the traditional progressive values that resonate with most Americans.”
The group spent $4.7 million in 2009 “redefining” common sense and, according to their IRS form 990, on “advocacy and education about public policy issues.” Americans United for Change directly engaged Republican senators facing reelection in 2008, running television advertisements against them. Naturally, no Democrat complained. Nor did the IRS revoke its 501(c) status.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/06/04/Leftist-Groups-Enjoy-IRS-Tax-Exempt-Status-While-Tea-Party-Suffers

I don't really know much about this group. It was founded in 2005 though, so I expect Obama had little to do with its tax status.

Can you please answer the question of how the Tea Party groups meet the definition of the law?

[Anonymous]

Well, for one thing, liberal groups were approved. How is that equal application of the law?

[Anonymous]

I don't really know much about this group. It was founded in 2005 though, so I expect Obama had little to do with its tax status.

Can you please answer the question of how the Tea Party groups meet the definition of the law?

True the Vote is a group that the left has identified as a “tea party” organization. Here is the description of their work:

https://www.truethevote.org/aboutus

As the nation’s largest nonpartisan, voters’ rights and election integrity organization, True the Vote exists to inspire and equip volunteers for involvement at every stage of America’s electoral process. We provide training, technology, and support to fellow citizens so that they can ensure election integrity in their own communities.

Catherine Engelbrecht, the founder of this organization, was so mistreated by the IRS.
This was her testimony before the House Oversight Committee:

"My life before I spoke out for good government stands in stark contrast to the life I now lead. As a wife, a mother, and small businesswoman working with my husband, raising our children and participating in my church and PTA, the government collected my taxes and left me and my family in peace. But when I helped found and led True the Vote and King Street Patriots, I found myself a target of this federal government," she said. "Shortly after filing IRS forms to establish 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) tax exempt organizations, an assortment of federal entities including law enforcement agencies and a Congressman from Maryland, Elijah Cummings came knocking at my door. In nearly two decades of running our small business, my husband and I never dealt with any government agency, outside of filing our annual tax returns. We had never been audited, we had never been investigated, but all that changed upon submitting applications for the non profit statuses of True the Vote and King Street Patriots. Since that filing in 2010, my private businesses, my nonprofit organizations, and family have been subjected to more than 15 instances of audit or inquiry by federal agencies.”
Engelbrecht was audited by the IRS, ATF and received multiple visits by OSHA and ATF.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2014/02/07/true-the-vote-president-catherine-engelbrecht-slams-irs-abuse-weaponizing-of-government-n1791240

Anyone who believes there is not a “smidgeon of corruption” here is denying reality. But, that is how Obama and his followers work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well, for one thing, liberal groups were approved. How is that equal application of the law?

Liberal groups were denied.

The utter refusal of conservatives on this board to answer the question "do tea party groups meet the legal definition of a 501 c 4" is the ultimate proof on this subject. None of you can say that they meet the standard. None.

Now I will go away and check 538 to see how Tea Party Candidates are faring in 2014.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, for one thing, liberal groups were approved. How is that equal application of the law?

Liberal groups were denied.

The utter refusal of conservatives on this board to answer the question "do tea party groups meet the legal definition of a 501 c 4" is the ultimate proof on this subject. None of you can say that they meet the standard. None.

Now I will go away and check 538 to see how Tea Party Candidates are faring in 2014.

READ MY POST AT 9:41. HOW DOES THIS ORGANIZATION NOT MEET THE LEGAL DEFINITION??????
And, BTW - change your posting to “liberal group” (singular) denied. And, this is why - they are clearly helping DEMOCRATS!!!
http://www.salon.com/2013/05/15/meet_the_group_the_irs_actually_revoked_democrats/

I don’t believe you really have the knowledge and background to continue posting, so I am glad you are going away.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, for one thing, liberal groups were approved. How is that equal application of the law?

Liberal groups were denied.

The utter refusal of conservatives on this board to answer the question "do tea party groups meet the legal definition of a 501 c 4" is the ultimate proof on this subject. None of you can say that they meet the standard. None.

Now I will go away and check 538 to see how Tea Party Candidates are faring in 2014.

READ MY POST AT 9:41. HOW DOES THIS ORGANIZATION NOT MEET THE LEGAL DEFINITION??????
And, BTW - change your posting to “liberal group” (singular) denied. And, this is why - they are clearly helping DEMOCRATS!!!
http://www.salon.com/2013/05/15/meet_the_group_the_irs_actually_revoked_democrats/

I don’t believe you really have the knowledge and background to continue posting, so I am glad you are going away.

I will for a moment ignore the fact that you did not actually articulate an answer to the question. And I will say that the answer to why True the Vote may not qualify is that it does not defend the interests of voters on all sides of the political spectrum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, for one thing, liberal groups were approved. How is that equal application of the law?

Liberal groups were denied.

The utter refusal of conservatives on this board to answer the question "do tea party groups meet the legal definition of a 501 c 4" is the ultimate proof on this subject. None of you can say that they meet the standard. None.

Now I will go away and check 538 to see how Tea Party Candidates are faring in 2014.

READ MY POST AT 9:41. HOW DOES THIS ORGANIZATION NOT MEET THE LEGAL DEFINITION??????
And, BTW - change your posting to “liberal group” (singular) denied. And, this is why - they are clearly helping DEMOCRATS!!!
http://www.salon.com/2013/05/15/meet_the_group_the_irs_actually_revoked_democrats/

I don’t believe you really have the knowledge and background to continue posting, so I am glad you are going away.

I will for a moment ignore the fact that you did not actually articulate an answer to the question. And I will say that the answer to why True the Vote may not qualify is that it does not defend the interests of voters on all sides of the political spectrum.

Source and proof for this statement.