•At least 5 pro-Israel groups
•Constitutional groups
•Groups that criticized Obama administration
•At least two pro-life groups
•An 83 year-old Nazi concentration camp survivor
•A 180 year-old Baptist paper
•A Texas voting-rights group
•A Hollywood conservative group was targeted and harassed
•Conservative activists and businesses
•At least one conservative Hispanic group
•IRS continued to target groups even after the scandal was exposed
•And… 100% of the 501(c)(4) Groups Audited by IRS Were Conservative
There is NO EVIDENCE that a single liberal group went through the same scrutiny as conservative groups.”
What the hell is wrong with this country to put up with this?
list from Dogbert41
What does a nongovernmental organization have to do with any of the above? Or is your position that the above is trumped if one Tee wasn't crossed or "I" dotted? Nixon talked about targeting his enemies with the IRS - he NEVER did it. It was still written up in the letters of impeachment.
Please comment of the list above - not some stupid MSNBC propaganda. My position is NOT that Republicans walk on water... no one is perfect - but that the above took place ONLY AGAINST CONSERVATIVES. (Oh, and I didn't excuse Nixon... did you?)
Oh, no -- I didn't. I remember a generational family argument in which we juniors (we were about 25 at the time) took the charges against Nixon very seriously and gave full attention and credit to Sam Dash and Sam Ervin's narrative as they developed it in sessions of the Watergate Committee. I even learned to spell "eleemosynary".
So I gave the Democrats credit, and it was the older family member, a World War II infantry veteran, who called us naive and foolish young men, and stoutly called b.s. on the Dems' "shocked, shocked!" professions of astonishment that anyone could abuse the White House so, by doing the same things Lyndon Johnson, Prince Jack, and Franklin D. Roosevelt did every day, and which DimRat double-domers like Arthur Schlesinger (bless his twinky little heart) and James McGregor Burns, an Official Intellectual Heavyweight of the 50's and 60's, had advocated and warmly approved when done by The Good Prince -- namely, any 'Rat, but especially His Elegance Jack I.
So the Imperial Presidency and all its "implicit" "discretions" (meaning, authoritarian encrustations left over from two wartime 'Rat administrations) was hunky-dory and the Best of All Possible Worlds until Dick Nixon showed up and promptly crammed it up those guys' kiesters (Arthur Schlesinger at least should have squealed with delight), and showed them the potential cost to everyone in the Permanent Ruling Class if all that power fell into the hands of someone with the moral perspective of the emperor Caracalla.
And so of course as soon as Slick Willie slithered into office, 'Rat nodding sages, their heads weighed down by that enormous mass of Intellectual Gravitas, promptly regretted the Watergate reforms publicly, insofar as they tied the hands of the incoming Good Prince. From what we've seen and heard about Slick's operation .... not so much. He wasn't inhibited or slowed down a hell of a lot by any of the old Good Government institutions and firewalls. (Glass-Steagall .... Hatch Act .... Fourth Amendment.)
Example (Hatch Act): He and Beastwoman promptly set about demonizing white men in the Civil Service, and politicizing the Civil Service by organizing what amounted to "let's get Whitey" consciousness-raising rings led by "change agents" (sc. "Alinskyite agitators") none of whom could be, in Hillary's braying sophistry, "too male, too pale, too stale".
The point I remain stuck on is, I thought ever so many of the NGO's attacked by the Obama Administration were conservative 501(c)3's, not (c)4's. That the subject of (c)4's came up as a Regime play to induce the Tea Partiers to hamstring themselves in an effort to get IRS clearance. Or am I wrong?