Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
good. they should remove tax-exempt status from many of these organizations: conservative, liberal, as well as the religious fanatics who slip politics into their message.
Yeah, we should just shut people up who disagree with the government and politicains.. The governments message is so much more important...
But they do.. The IRS doesnt seem to be so concerned about it either
Clearly you arent saying they were more over the top then PPAC, are you?
I'm saying they didn't have the same tax exemption. One's a 3c, the other a 4c. The Patrick Henry exceeded the limitations (were more over the top) of the classification they themselves had applied for.
I needed no instruction to recognize that it was a fake scandal. I simply had to watch it unfold.
As to "evolving," it's what smart people do. You should give it a shot.
Most people "evolve" when the facts suggest something different. If one day that's the case, I'll evolve. However, when the organization admits wrongdoing and the President agrees, I want more evidence than the President's 180 degree turn and declaration that there isn't a "smidgen" while the central figure is claiming her right not to incriminate herself and other questions remain unanswered.
Most people "evolve" when the facts suggest something different. If one day that's the case, I'll evolve. However, when the organization admits wrongdoing and the President agrees, I want more evidence than the President's 180 degree turn and declaration that there isn't a "smidgen" while the central figure is claiming her right not to incriminate herself and other questions remain unanswered.
I think that's slipping down a slope here. The organization in question admits that their policy was wrong, that the people who implemented the policy were wrong. But some people on the right want the President to prove that there wasn't a conspiracy, a huge conspiracy, to target right-wing groups. That's a logical impossibility. You can't prove a negative. And these people on the right know that. Which is why they keep demanding it. It lets them off the hook of having to prove the conspiracy they allege.
Lerner is pleading the 5th because she's got no other options. She's already conceded that the IRS was wrong in what they did. She can't prove that there wasn't a conspiracy. All she can do is deny it. But because the standard she's being held to, to prove that there wasn't a conspiracy, is an impossible standard, and because her interrogation is never-ending as she's being held to an impossible standard, she's pleading the 5th. The investigation isn't going to stop, and eventually someone is going to be punished. She's the one in the investigation's clutches.
The most interesting thing about this whole Patrick Henry group is the 'justification' that the IRS is using for the revocation. They cite Tax Returns for 3 years and those 3 years are redacted, but it's clear from the examples that they were 9 to 11 years ago. You can't help but wonder why the IRS has to go back a decade to find an excuse for the revocation of 501c3 status. The "over the top" stuff was about John Kerry when he was running for President, but why NOW - what has happened NOW that has caused the IRS to investigate and remove 501c3 status from this group?
Turns out that they made a donation to a Tea Party group in New Jersey in 2011 - it's what put the Patrick Henry organization under the IRS microscope. I guess the IRS felt it would raise eyebrows if they went after them for a contribution to a TP group, so they dug up 10 year old data.
Scary times we live in. It's worth your time to read the entire IRS statement that is linked earlier in this thread. I wonder if the IRS is also auditing all the people who donated money to the Patrick Henry group over the past 10 years.
The purpose of the Patrick Henry Center was to represent government whistleblowers, and its first client was Linda Tripp, the Pentagon employee whose recorded phone calls with Monica Lewinsky launched an effort to impeach Clinton.
Which if true, would qualify them for a 501c3 status...
I asked you since you are stating they dont qualify but havent backed it up with a valid reason why not.
WHAT part of "Under the tax code, it's illegal for a charity to engage in electoral politics" causes such difficulty for you? Or is it just the self-Righteous consider themselves above the law when it suits their agenda?
I cannot speak for the OP, however lets look at it realistically. If people within the IRS have discretion to decide who gets tax exempt status and who doesn't, it is not beyond comprehension that they will overlook certain groups political actions while targeting others. No one should be so naive to believe BOTH (D's) & (R's) are not doing it, but if those who decide allow one party but not the other to get away with it, the effect is still the same.
Based on what happened prior with the IRS targeting Tea Party aligned groups, there is little question it is still occurring.
The worst part is that when Nixon tried to sick the IRS on his political opponents, there was outrage from both the right and the left. Yet very few on the left seem to be outraged with the current situation.
It is a subversion of our democracy, and anyone on the left who does not agree is nothing more than a hypocrite.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
