Barry's Not-So-Excellent Adventures

Posts : 9728

Pretty much sums up the Republican party,doesn't it?

Posts : 6988

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/06/06/leno_irs_cant_determine_powerball_winners_taxes_until_they_know_if_shes_a_republican_or_democrat.html

After a month of waiting, it turns out an 84-year-old woman in Florida has won the $590 million Powerball lottery.
As for how much tax she's going to have to pay on that $590 million, the IRS said it's too soon to tell because they don't know whether she's a a Republican or a Democrat.

Posts : 9728

Another Daryl Issel witch hunt is proven to be bullshit....
Put It To Bed

Quote :

New Records Reveal IRS Targeted Progressive Groups More Extensively Than Tea Party

Our conservative friends can have a hard time letting go of homemade controversies that have been proven to be unsubstantiated and untrue (see: Benghazi). So we’d like to do our part in helping them put to bed another of these: the belief that the IRS targeted Tea Party groups applying for tax-exempt status.

That is not to say that the IRS didn’t act improperly: the government body did target some groups applying for tax-exempt status for additional scrutiny if they contained certain key words. The IRS has acknowledged that this was a failure, and President Obama and Congressional Democrats agree.

But Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) and his House Oversight and Government Reform Committee couldn’t stop there. They have continued to assert that the IRS singled out Tea Party groups, including in the committee’s latest report entitled “Debunking the Myth that the IRS Targeted Progressives.”

To clear the air, ThinkProgress issued a request for IRS documents under the Freedom of Information Act. Here is what they found:

Quote :: A series of IRS documents, provided to ThinkProgress under the Freedom of Information Act, appears to contradict the claims by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) and his House Oversight and Government Reform Committee that only Tea Party organizations applying for tax-exempt status “received systematic scrutiny because of their political beliefs.” The 22 “Be On the Look Out” keywords lists, distributed to staff reviewing applications between August 12, 2010 and April 19, 2013, included more explicit references to progressive groups, ACORN successors, and medical marijuana organizations than to Tea Party entities.

Barry's Not-So-Excellent Adventures - Page 3 Irs_foia-65-638x484

Quote :: The scandal has certainly provided plenty of fodder for Fox News (President Obama even called them out on it in a pre-Super Bowl interview with Bill O’Reilly). But it has been costly to the IRS and soaked up countless hours of research, hearings, and reporting.

BOTTOM LINE: New information that the IRS actually targeted progressive groups more than the Tea Party should put this issue to rest once and for all. It’s time conservatives put aside petty, wasteful, and misleading political battles and help solve our country’s many challenges.

Posts : 9728

Climb into the Wayback machine with me and recall our Trump Worshiping Coward AKA 'Happy Jack' getting all bent out of shape over an op-ed that criticized Obama falsely. When it comes to Trump though our resident sycophant has nothing to say.
More proof he is a Trump Worshiping Coward

happy jack wrote:: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-edit-obama-20130515,0,1109593.story

Obama and overreach

Americans see evidence of truth-shading, arrogance and intrusion

May 15, 2013

•Multiple White House claims about Washington's handling of the murderous raid in Benghazi stand exposed as false.
•Internal Revenue Service officials admit a worse-by-the-day scandal that appalls fair-minded Americans.
•The U.S. Department of Justice scrambles to explain its clandestine collection of records on work and personal telephone lines that The Associated Press says are used by more than 100 of its journalists.
In reaction, the White House blames political opponents, disavows ownership or pleads ignorance.
Hard as it may be, then, set aside your own politics and ask yourself which of these Monday statements rings truer:
"The whole issue of talking points, frankly, throughout this process has been a sideshow. ... And suddenly, three days ago, this gets spun up as if there's something new to the story. There's no 'there' there."
— President Barack Obama, dismissing congressional scrutiny of his and his subordinates' statements about Benghazi as a "political circus"
"Americans should take notice that top Obama administration officials increasingly see themselves as above the law and emboldened by the belief that they don't have to answer to anyone."
— House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa
For now, many among us would take Option 2. With each of these troubling disclosures, the Obama administration finds itself reacting to appearances of overreach, of arrogance, of determination to dodge its embarrassments rather than to take ownership of them.
We don't expect unanimity of agreement on this. On each of these controversies, though, even some of the president's most loyal supporters — from Capitol Hill to the liberal commentariat to Main Streets across the land — are questioning the government's conduct on his watch. That turnabout either angers or amuses opponents inclined to ask the supporters, "Where have you been?"
At each of these turns, the Obama administration has looked manipulative, defensive and peevish. In one sense those aren't startling reactions; they're vulnerabilities for any White House that, like this one, wants an image of moral righteousness, honesty and transparency.
Taken together, though, these controversies project a less flattering image of truth-shading, hubris and intrusion. In the week of humiliating disclosures that started with last Wednesday's congressional hearing on Benghazi, Americans haven't seen the administration exhibit ... one shred of humility:
•The White House and State Department have taken vague responsibility for Benghazi mistakes, but neither has produced answers to the most crucial questions, starting with:
Who, exactly, had rejected repeated requests for security upgrades from U.S. officials in Libya? Who, exactly, decided not to attempt a military rescue, an F-16 flyover, a NATO or other allied reaction, something, during the eight-hour assault? Who, exactly, let the task of informing the American people deteriorate into an orgy of tail-covering and lies? And why, exactly, does the president's spokesman still mislead Americans by suggesting that the Central Intelligence Agency, rather than the State Department or White House, drove that process — essentially blaming CIA staffers who did the typing rather than blaming administration officials who told them what to type?
•The IRS' disclosure that it had inordinately targeted conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status was astonishing. No more astonishing, though, than Tuesday's news that the IRS allegedly gave nonpublic information about nine of those groups to ProPublica, an investigative journalism organization.
Obama called the early disclosures outrageous and vowed to learn "exactly what happened on this." The president would have better served himself and his administration, though, by acknowledging the shriekingly obvious: If IRS officials were trying to hinder conservative groups that opposed Obama, that means high-level federal officials were trying to steer the Nov. 6 election to the president. There was no such candor from the president or, Tuesday, from his spokesman.
•Americans thus far know less about the Justice Department's grab of AP staffers' phone records. But here, too, many of those Americans can't help but ask if all the president's men and women stay up late, trying to look intrusive.
By the AP's account, Justice subjected the organization to an unprecedented invasion of its news-gathering operations. The evident goal: to identify the government source(s) of a May 2012 AP story about a CIA operation in Yemen that had stopped an al-Qaida plot to bomb a U.S.-bound airplane.
Once again, a question raised by the Benghazi debacle resonates loudly: As the 2012 presidential election approached, were some federal officials overstepping bounds to shore up the president's campaign claim that, as he said at the Democratic National Convention, "al-Qaida is on the path to defeat"?
The easiest way for the president and his White House to further that rising suspicion — we emphasize that it's thus far unproven — is to demonstrate three things to his newly energized foes and to his friends who didn't expect this sort of conduct: that his subordinates will end their egregious stonewalling on Benghazi, will pursue the IRS scandal as high as it goes and will demand full disclosure of whether his Justice Department scrupulously followed the law in its pursuit of journalists' phone records.
Until the president makes and keeps those three assurances, he'll continue to make Issa's accusation ring true: This administration looks guilty of overreach — of believing it is above the law.