WHAT IS THE LEARNED LOIS HIDING?
When I first saw the report this afternoon that Lois Lerner again refused to answer any questions of the House Oversight Committee, the first word that popped into my mind was “scoundrel.” Lawless Lois Lerner perfectly represents the current Administration, as well as the current Internal Revenue Scoundrels (IRS) Organization. There is no longer any Service in that scandal-ridden bureaucracy.
scoun·drel
/ˈskoundrəl/
noun: scoundrel; plural
noun: scoundrel
1. a dishonest or unscrupulous person; a rogue.
|
:
|
synonyms: wretch, scumbag scumbucket, scuzzball, sleazeball, sleazebag, ratfink;
|
Two minor rogue
agents working in the bowels of the Cincinnati office (just like the deliberate
false accusation blaming a YouTube video being responsible for BenghaziGate?) were
responsible for targeted the Tea Parties? Hogwash! The pattern of lying and
deceit is clear with this corrupt administration.
Trace the
scandal and I bet it lands at the door of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. The IRS
under the direction of the current regime is a renegade agency, out of control and
is being used by this administration to target its political “enemies” -
Conservative Citizen Groups and Tea Party Participants - actually anyone who
opposes the regimes’ radical transformative socialist agenda.
Not satisfied
with past misconduct and election “achievements,” the Left led by Democrat US
Senators endangered in losing their jobs wanted the IRS to institutionalize their
scandalous targeting practices by proposing new regulation. They did this hoping that the public would
not notice when they put them out for comment around the holidays to further hoping
to further stifle the voice of the citizen activists.
MY COMMENTS TO
THE PROPOSED RESTRICTIVE NEW IRS REGS
Thanks to watchful organizations
like True the Vote and Heritage Action they aroused the public making us aware
of the unscrupulous regulations and urging the public to comment. Despite the fact
that the comment period covered much of the holidays (deliberately done so to
discourage public input,) people did comment. Boy, did they comment. There were
nearly 150,000 comments to these liberty-restricting regulations. I heard that
this was the greatest number of comments ever made to proposed regulations.
Here are the
comments that I wrote to the IRS regulation titled, “Guidance for Tax-Exempt
Social Welfare Organizations on Candidate-Related Political Activities”:
My First Comments
1. By what law or
authority or basis does the IRS have to make these regulations, which seem to
role of Congress? Has Congress through legislation given the IRS direction?
2. Actually, the law that oversees 501(c)(4) organizations has been on the books for over 50 years. The law, written by Congress and signed by the President, doesn’t put any restrictions on political speech by these citizen groups. These new regulations are not needed. The IRS should follow the original law.
3. Why were 501 C (5) Unions and 501 C (6) Business Associations exempt from these new IRS regulations, while 501 C (3) Citizen Groups are being targeted for the curtailment of political activity? This seems to be blatantly unfair and unjust. It discourages to the point of silencing the united individual citizen voices, but permits the powerful united labor and united business organizations to shout their views and political opinions in the political process to an unequal and unfair degree!
4. The information required by the IRS of these citizen groups is excessive and burdensome. It would discourage individual participation in the political process.
5. Further input should be obtained from the American public through a series of Public Hearings in every region of the country – North, South, East, West, Midwest, etc. IRS must justify the necessity of these burdensome regulations.
6. If the IRS insists on burdening this class of organizations, (then) it is only fair that they require the same restricted political activity of the moneyed labor unions and business associations!
2. Actually, the law that oversees 501(c)(4) organizations has been on the books for over 50 years. The law, written by Congress and signed by the President, doesn’t put any restrictions on political speech by these citizen groups. These new regulations are not needed. The IRS should follow the original law.
3. Why were 501 C (5) Unions and 501 C (6) Business Associations exempt from these new IRS regulations, while 501 C (3) Citizen Groups are being targeted for the curtailment of political activity? This seems to be blatantly unfair and unjust. It discourages to the point of silencing the united individual citizen voices, but permits the powerful united labor and united business organizations to shout their views and political opinions in the political process to an unequal and unfair degree!
4. The information required by the IRS of these citizen groups is excessive and burdensome. It would discourage individual participation in the political process.
5. Further input should be obtained from the American public through a series of Public Hearings in every region of the country – North, South, East, West, Midwest, etc. IRS must justify the necessity of these burdensome regulations.
6. If the IRS insists on burdening this class of organizations, (then) it is only fair that they require the same restricted political activity of the moneyed labor unions and business associations!
My
Second Comments
These
proposed regulations distinguish between professional lobbying versus
grassroots lobbying done by ordinary citizens. The regulations consider lobbying
done by citizen grassroots groups as "political activity" but
professional lobbying remains status quo. Does the IRS want only professionals
involved in political activity?
These regulations limit the sources of information for the individual voter. This is very undemocratic. Why does the IRS seem to discourage -through these regulations - such activities as candidate debates, candidate forums, and open-to-the-public town hall meetings? These activities are surely more informative and helpful than seriously biased and partisan TV and radio ads. Classifying certain activities by 501 C (4) organizations as "candidate-related" even if they are not related to an election actually gets in the way of important sources of information for the individual voter even more, squelching legitimate issue ads trying to impact the legislative process.
Overall these proposed IRS regulations seem to be meant to discourage like-minded individuals uniting together to influence the political process from start to finish. It would only seem fair that Business and Union groups be subject to the same rules as liberal and conservative citizen groups.
These regulations limit the sources of information for the individual voter. This is very undemocratic. Why does the IRS seem to discourage -through these regulations - such activities as candidate debates, candidate forums, and open-to-the-public town hall meetings? These activities are surely more informative and helpful than seriously biased and partisan TV and radio ads. Classifying certain activities by 501 C (4) organizations as "candidate-related" even if they are not related to an election actually gets in the way of important sources of information for the individual voter even more, squelching legitimate issue ads trying to impact the legislative process.
Overall these proposed IRS regulations seem to be meant to discourage like-minded individuals uniting together to influence the political process from start to finish. It would only seem fair that Business and Union groups be subject to the same rules as liberal and conservative citizen groups.
No comments:
Post a Comment