Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

IRS under Bush targeted NAACP deliberately


  • Please log in to reply
32 replies to this topic

#1    Jessica Christ

Jessica Christ

    jeanne d'arc, je te suivrai

  • Member
  • 3,607 posts
  • Joined:27 May 2011

  • It seems so important now but you will get over.

Posted 14 May 2013 - 01:22 AM

Quote

This isn't the first time the IRS has been in hot water for meddling in the politics of nonprofits. And if past is prelude, the Obama administration may have a years-long scandal on its hands.

In 2004, the NAACP was hit with an audit over accusations of improper political activity for criticizing the Bush administration.

"We have received information that during your 2004 convention in Philadelphia, your organization distributed statements in opposition of George W. Bush for the office of presidency," the IRS wrote in an audit notice that the group released to the media at the time.

Auditors also notified the group that it could be subject to a 10 percent tax for political expenditures as well as a 2.5 percent tax on any manager that signed off on the political activity.

The NAACP went public and sparked a now-familiar firestorm. Democrats in Congress were up in arms and called for answers about what constitutes political activity and questioning the political motivations of the agency.

Rep. Charles Rangel, the top Democrat on the Ways and Means Committee at the time, called the audit a police state tactic. Max Baucus, then the ranking member on the Senate Finance Committee, sent a letter to then-IRS Commissioner Mark Everson demanding answers to a list of questions about other similar audits.

“The integrity of our tax enforcement system is a critical matter,” Baucus wrote at the time. “The American public expects a high degree of non-partisanship and professionalism from the IRS."

The agency denied a culture of bias. They said the audit was triggered by staffers in a satellite office, this time in Kentucky.

It took more than two years and a lengthy legal battle for the IRS to drop its case against the NAACP.  That was all well before the Supreme Court unleashed a flood of political groups into the IRS pool with its Citizens United decision.

“It caught the IRS completely flatfooted,” Lloyd Mayer, one of the attorneys that represented the NAACP in the case, told POLITICO on Monday. “They had never even thought of the possibility that one of their audit targets would go public and accuse the agency of bias.”

IRS targeted NAACP in 2004

Edited by Leave Britney alone!, 14 May 2013 - 01:22 AM.


#2    Ashotep

Ashotep

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,179 posts
  • Joined:10 May 2011
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:USA

  • Courage is being scared to death but saddling up anyway-John Wayne

Posted 14 May 2013 - 01:41 AM

I guess who is in office determines who they target.


#3    Jessica Christ

Jessica Christ

    jeanne d'arc, je te suivrai

  • Member
  • 3,607 posts
  • Joined:27 May 2011

  • It seems so important now but you will get over.

Posted 14 May 2013 - 02:08 AM

With two slight differences.

The Tea Party and patriots get a swift apology while the NAACP have to go through a two year lawsuit just for the IRS under Bush to stop.

And there was no outcry from those now complaining.


#4    spartan max2

spartan max2

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,350 posts
  • Joined:15 Nov 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ohio

  • There's nothing so absurd that if you repeat it often enough

Posted 14 May 2013 - 02:47 AM

I keep telling you guys Bush and Obma make the same decisions

" I imagine that the intellegent people are the ones so intellegent that they dont even need or want to look "intellegent" anymore".
Criss Jami

#5    redhen

redhen

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,825 posts
  • Joined:14 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Samsara

Posted 14 May 2013 - 03:35 AM

*
POPULAR

One of the comments on that article by NotMyRealFakeName

"It was irresponsible (actually just partisan in their usual way) to write this story without bothering to go to the NAACP web site to check this:

The NAACP is a charitable organization under Section 501©(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Any gift you make is tax-deductible to the maximum extent allowed by law.
That is a huge difference. c3's can't do ANY politics in return for making donations to them tax-deductible. Donations to c4's are not tax deductible, and that is why they can engage in limited political activity.
This article is not useful. It is deliberately misleading and partisan misinformation. Politico, and Kelsey Snell, should be ashamed of corrupting the national discussion on this subject with this poorly-researched piece."


#6    Kowalski

Kowalski

    The Original Penguin Conspiracy Theorist

  • Member
  • 4,102 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2013
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:* Madgascar *

  • It's All Some Kind Of Wacked Out Conspiracy....

Posted 14 May 2013 - 12:41 PM

View Postspartan max2, on 14 May 2013 - 02:47 AM, said:

I keep telling you guys Bush and Obma make the same decisions

Posted Image

:)


#7    Rafterman

Rafterman

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,244 posts
  • Joined:27 Sep 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Upstate

Posted 14 May 2013 - 01:52 PM

View Postredhen, on 14 May 2013 - 03:35 AM, said:

One of the comments on that article by NotMyRealFakeName

"It was irresponsible (actually just partisan in their usual way) to write this story without bothering to go to the NAACP web site to check this:

The NAACP is a charitable organization under Section 501©(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Any gift you make is tax-deductible to the maximum extent allowed by law.
That is a huge difference. c3's can't do ANY politics in return for making donations to them tax-deductible. Donations to c4's are not tax deductible, and that is why they can engage in limited political activity.
This article is not useful. It is deliberately misleading and partisan misinformation. Politico, and Kelsey Snell, should be ashamed of corrupting the national discussion on this subject with this poorly-researched piece."

Threadkiller.

There are big differences between c3 and c4 organizations - It's the same reason churches aren't supposed to get political.

Nice article though - trying to carry the water for Obama by playing the "Bush did it too" card.

"You can't have freedom of religion without having freedom from the religious beliefs of other people."

#8    Kowalski

Kowalski

    The Original Penguin Conspiracy Theorist

  • Member
  • 4,102 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2013
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:* Madgascar *

  • It's All Some Kind Of Wacked Out Conspiracy....

Posted 14 May 2013 - 02:19 PM

View PostRafterman, on 14 May 2013 - 01:52 PM, said:

Threadkiller.

There are big differences between c3 and c4 organizations - It's the same reason churches aren't supposed to get political.

Nice article though - trying to carry the water for Obama by playing the "Bush did it too" card.

Why do liberals always pull the "Bush did it" card??


#9    Capt Amerika

Capt Amerika

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 550 posts
  • Joined:31 May 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Frozen Tundra of the USA

Posted 14 May 2013 - 02:32 PM

View PostKowalski, on 14 May 2013 - 02:19 PM, said:

Why do liberals always pull the "Bush did it" card??

Because they dont have anything else, and half the time their "Bush did it too" card turns out to be false.
Just like this one,
I know LBA is just another Obama apologists but i really would have expected more research before starting this nonsensical thread.

And once again, i find the need to remind our Liberal Democrat friends that Obama was supposed to be all about "Hope and Change" not the same old stuff Bush did.
Yet for some reason they point it out so often that "Bush did it too" that it makes me wonder how long until they realize that Hope and Change was a lie.
Could they truly be so blind?


#10    Merc14

Merc14

    anti-woo magician

  • Member
  • 4,317 posts
  • Joined:03 Mar 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Virginia, USA

Posted 14 May 2013 - 04:05 PM

View PostLeave Britney alone!, on 14 May 2013 - 02:08 AM, said:

With two slight differences.

The Tea Party and patriots get a swift apology while the NAACP have to go through a two year lawsuit just for the IRS under Bush to stop.

And there was no outcry from those now complaining.


Considering your complete misunderstanding of this entire event it is astounding that you are trying to defend the IRS.  I don't think you have read a word about what is being disputed and are simply defending the IRS because you hate the tea party.  The big difference between the NAACP event and this one is that the NAACP dispute was about them abusing their c3 status while the Tea Party scandal is about the IRS denying pro-right organizations any kind of tax exemption at all or unnecessarily and/or illegally demanding private info not relevant to c3 or c4 status.  Two completely different tax status disputes so why use as a comprison?

FYI, many organizations lose their c3 status annually from practicing political activism much less flagrant than that which the NAACP engages in.  If you weren't so blindly obsessed with your hatred of the right you'd see that allowing your side to get away with illegal activity will come back to bite you in the ass when the other side takes over and sites balkekty-blank as precedent when they ride roughshod over your sacred cow.

You asked for Obamamerica, now you are going to get it.  Stand by for suck or as Pelosi says, "Embrace the suck".

#11    Jessica Christ

Jessica Christ

    jeanne d'arc, je te suivrai

  • Member
  • 3,607 posts
  • Joined:27 May 2011

  • It seems so important now but you will get over.

Posted 14 May 2013 - 04:51 PM

The comparisons are enough so that others can see the hypocrisy.

Those who are being hypocritical are attempting to find minor differences and dismiss the comparison while ignoring the similarities, that the IRS was used as an instrument to oppose and hassle groups who disagreed with the administration.

The only difference that is applicable for others is that the current administration did not know about it while the previous one did, it was in the open, clearly stated in the IRS letter: "your organization distributed statements in opposition of George W. Bush for the office of presidency..."

This is not to allay those who are wanting to make a scandal out of it now but to inform those who with a suspicious eye are looking at the Republicans and slowly shaking their heads in understanding.

The Benghazi Bray Brigade, the Tea Party Patriot Protesters, and the AP Press Partisans, all the same group of people, are the ones we are seeing hypocrisy from. Clearly they are just being partisan.

View PostMerc14, on 14 May 2013 - 04:05 PM, said:

Considering your complete misunderstanding of this entire event it is astounding that you are trying to defend the IRS.  I don't think you have read a word about what is being disputed and are simply defending the IRS because you hate the tea party.  The big difference between the NAACP event and this one is that the NAACP dispute was about them abusing their c3 status while the Tea Party scandal is about the IRS denying pro-right organizations any kind of tax exemption at all or unnecessarily and/or illegally demanding private info not relevant to c3 or c4 status.  Two completely different tax status disputes so why use as a comprison?

FYI, many organizations lose their c3 status annually from practicing political activism much less flagrant than that which the NAACP engages in.  If you weren't so blindly obsessed with your hatred of the right you'd see that allowing your side to get away with illegal activity will come back to bite you in the ass when the other side takes over and sites balkekty-blank as precedent when they ride roughshod over your sacred cow.

Besides when those who admit to coming online after a few drinks while discussing these issues, we will take them even less seriously.

Let me guess? Beer?

Edited by Leave Britney alone!, 14 May 2013 - 05:15 PM.


#12    Bama13

Bama13

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,492 posts
  • Joined:09 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Just Southeast of God's country

Posted 14 May 2013 - 05:06 PM

View PostLeave Britney alone!, on 14 May 2013 - 04:51 PM, said:

The comparisons are enough so that others can see the hypocrisy.

Whether those who are being hypocritical and are attempting to find minor differences, they are ignoring the similarities, that the IRS was used as an instrument to oppose and hassle groups who disagree with the administration.

The only difference that is applicable for others is that the current administration did not know about it while the previous one did, it was in the open, clearly stated in the IRS letter: "your organization distributed statements in opposition of George W. Bush for the office of presidency..."

This is not to allay those who are wanting to make a scandal out of it now but to inform those who wish a suspicious eye are looking at the Republicans and slowly shaking their heads in understanding.

The Benghazi Bray Brigade, the Tea Party Patriot Protesters, and the AP Press Partisans, all the same group of people, are the ones we are seeing hypocrisy from. Clearly they are just being partisan.



Besides when those who admit to coming online after a few drinks while discussing these issues, we will take them even less seriously.

Let me guess? Beer?

When it is pointed out, and proven, that you are wrong you should just apologize and move on, not keep digging.

" Mighty little force is needed to control a man whose mind has been hoodwinked; contrariwise, no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything —you can't conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him" - Robert Heinlein

#13    Merc14

Merc14

    anti-woo magician

  • Member
  • 4,317 posts
  • Joined:03 Mar 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Virginia, USA

Posted 14 May 2013 - 06:08 PM

View PostLeave Britney alone!, on 14 May 2013 - 04:51 PM, said:

The comparisons are enough so that others can see the hypocrisy.

Those who are being hypocritical are attempting to find minor differences and dismiss the comparison while ignoring the similarities, that the IRS was used as an instrument to oppose and hassle groups who disagreed with the administration.

The only difference that is applicable for others is that the current administration did not know about it while the previous one did, it was in the open, clearly stated in the IRS letter: "your organization distributed statements in opposition of George W. Bush for the office of presidency..."

This is not to allay those who are wanting to make a scandal out of it now but to inform those who with a suspicious eye are looking at the Republicans and slowly shaking their heads in understanding.

The Benghazi Bray Brigade, the Tea Party Patriot Protesters, and the AP Press Partisans, all the same group of people, are the ones we are seeing hypocrisy from. Clearly they are just being partisan.



Besides when those who admit to coming online after a few drinks while discussing these issues, we will take them even less seriously.

Let me guess? Beer?

Wine that night but I enjoy beer as well, why, do you have a oproblem with beer drinkers?   Are you even old enough to drink Britney?  I am guessing not based on your reaction to being proved wrong again and again and again.  :td:   Listen, try harder, you sanctimonious little ####, you are boring me.

Edited by Merc14, 14 May 2013 - 06:18 PM.

You asked for Obamamerica, now you are going to get it.  Stand by for suck or as Pelosi says, "Embrace the suck".

#14    Rafterman

Rafterman

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,244 posts
  • Joined:27 Sep 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Upstate

Posted 14 May 2013 - 06:30 PM

View PostLeave Britney alone!, on 14 May 2013 - 04:51 PM, said:

The comparisons are enough so that others can see the hypocrisy.

Those who are being hypocritical are attempting to find minor differences and dismiss the comparison while ignoring the similarities, that the IRS was used as an instrument to oppose and hassle groups who disagreed with the administration.

The only difference that is applicable for others is that the current administration did not know about it while the previous one did, it was in the open, clearly stated in the IRS letter: "your organization distributed statements in opposition of George W. Bush for the office of presidency..."

This is not to allay those who are wanting to make a scandal out of it now but to inform those who with a suspicious eye are looking at the Republicans and slowly shaking their heads in understanding.

The Benghazi Bray Brigade, the Tea Party Patriot Protesters, and the AP Press Partisans, all the same group of people, are the ones we are seeing hypocrisy from. Clearly they are just being partisan.



Besides when those who admit to coming online after a few drinks while discussing these issues, we will take them even less seriously.

Let me guess? Beer?

Minor differences?

Now that's laughable.  Tell that to a tax attorney.

"You can't have freedom of religion without having freedom from the religious beliefs of other people."

#15    Jessica Christ

Jessica Christ

    jeanne d'arc, je te suivrai

  • Member
  • 3,607 posts
  • Joined:27 May 2011

  • It seems so important now but you will get over.

Posted 14 May 2013 - 06:34 PM

Not discussing tax attorneys but hypocrisy and how some claimed (whether true or not in both instances Obama or Bush) the administration is using the IRS to crack down on groups they don't like or agree with, the same exact thing happened then, as some are claiming has happened now (even if the WH under Obama did not approve or condone the IRS doing that).

To claim that is different based on 3 or 4 is minor, the hypocrisy is being scrutinized by some, the hypocrites will of course try to defend themselves by presenting such a minor difference that ignores what is in bold above.

The "Bush did it too card" is another ruse. Bush might have did it, Obama did not do it.

In fact the person in charge of the IRS, where the buck stops, was a Republican who Bush appointed.

Edited by Leave Britney alone!, 14 May 2013 - 06:36 PM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users