IRS targeting of Conservative groups

Im sure you felt that way when it was happening.
Its outrage now though.

 

Didnt they just pass a law allowing the Feds to read our emails without a warrant?

 

I don't hate the guy, I'm sure I would enjoy his company...I don't trust him or like his policies. It's NOT personal. Guess what I didn't like Bush pushing FISA and spending money like a D.

You can say the IRS is independent till you are blue in the face but that doesn't change the facts. MM the Fed Bank is independent. Ben Bernanke can do what he wants without checking with either executive or legislative branch say so. He does answer if he breaks law and for nomination & confirmation. The IRS is part of the Dept of the Treasury. The diector works FOR the president at his pleasure. He reports to the Sec of the Treasury who works get this for the Pres. Cabinet agencies such as the IRS are part of the Executive branch and NOT independent. GET IT!

I am fine with checking background to insure political groups follow the law. That IS NOT what we are talking about. It appears the IRS targeted conservative groups only. You are trying to change the subject. If you agree that targeting specific groups while not others is wrong and if that is what happened you don't like it SAY SO! Don't be a wus and avoid the subject.

Finally the DOJ does sieze records of many BUT with a proper warrant and not to suppress the 1st amendment as was done here. Again you change the subject because you may not like what the action says about the president. Open your eyes even the ACLU, and liberal D senators & congress is up in arms. Don't you understand the action was done for 2 reasons. First it warned the press that they could be targeted too. More importantly it warn potential whistleblowers that they were not safe either. This is a very chilling action and threatens the 1st amendment.

MM I knjow it was no fun for me to see that W wasn't what I hoped so it may be as hard for you. By the time the election for his (W's) second term I couldn't vote for him. You need to at least take an honest look at what is happening and then decide where you stand. Don't blindly defend the indefensible with obstruction and denial. You are better than that.

 

It is no excuse and will only dig the hole deeper. If supposed civil libertarians accept this we are in deep shit.

 

again the IRS is an independent agency. Republicans acknowledge that.

The IRS targeted 73 groups out of 345 that applied for the status with tea party or some variation of the word. They sat aside 300 groups for further scrutiny, not all where tea party groups. That is wrong and Im against it, like I said neither liberal or conservative groups with political activity should have that status. Im not blindly defending anyone, until it is proven that the White House had something to do with it, I will direct my fire at those who committed these acts. Instead of blaming the president who possibly had no idea this was happening and you accuse me of being partisan and that its not personal. Seems that it is but the words you are using.

None of what you said happened. The DOJ seized records because it had to do with a leak of an operation where an undercover CIA agent was posing as an Al-Queda figure trying to blow up a ship and the administration didnt want his cover blown, so the press didnt release the story, but after a while they did and it compromised the operation, because of leaks. They went about trying to investigate the matter in the wrong way. They did not suppress the first amendment, the press went ahead with the stories. They were listening to phone calls trying to find the leak, how is that suppressing the first amendment

How I am I changing the subject. I said from the beginning the same thing with the IRS story.

 

Not only IRS. Now stuff about EPA and HHS coming out. A lot of stuff is being reported in a short time. Doj may have pissed in their Cheerios by targeting AP.

http://m.bizjournals.com/memphis/bl...013-05-14&s=newsletter&ana=e_memp_rdup&r=full

http://m.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2529609