HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » kpete » Journal


Profile Information

Member since: Fri Sep 17, 2004, 03:59 PM
Number of posts: 45,967

Journal Archives

If Tea Party Groups have tax-exempt status then we should TOO- Where's our refund?

There isn't a single Tea Party group in the country that isn't primarily concerned with political matters. None of them should have qualified for tax-exempt status. None.

If they have tax-exempt status then so, too, should Atrios and Chris Bowers and Susie Madrak, and any other Philly bloggers who founded or joined blogs to oppose the war. Opposing disastrous war serves the public welfare even better than opposing historically-low tax rates.

Where's our refund?


IRS 501 Code: "must refrain from traditional partisan political activity, like endorsing candidates"


It’s important to review why the Tea Party groups were petitioning the I.R.S. anyway. They were seeking approval to operate under section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code. This would require them to be “social welfare,” not political, operations. There are significant advantages to being a 501(c)(4). These groups don’t pay taxes; they don’t have to disclose their donors—unlike traditional political organizations, such as political-action committees. In return for the tax advantage and the secrecy, the 501(c)(4) organizations must refrain from traditional partisan political activity, like endorsing candidates.


TeaParty911.com strives to list here only candidates with true Tea Party support. We will be updating the endorsed candidates on this page on a regular basis throughout the 2013-2014 election cycle, so check back here often to see who’s new.


Posted May 15, 2013


The Tea Party is still endorsing candidates so the IRS has evidence that the Tea Party is breaking the law but now they have to stop investigating them?


Jon Stewart calls out Rumsfeld & Cheney for daring to talk about Benghazi

THU MAY 16, 2013 AT 05:00 AM PDT
Jon Stewart calls out Rumsfeld and Cheney for daring to talk about Benghazi
by BruinKid


DONALD RUMSFELD (5/14/2013): I can't imagine how a person could stand up there, when everyone involved knew it was a terrorist attack. ... The idea that it was somehow related to a YouTube video and that that narrative kept being promoted, I suppose, it's because it fit their hopes and what they wanted to be the case.


STEWART: You believe the Obama administration's promoting a narrative? Not because it's real, but because it fits their hopes and what they want to be the case? You? Señor W.M.D. McGillicutty, Esq.? The guy who wanted to go after Saddam Hussein on 9/11 while the President was still reading "My Pet Goat"? You??


DICK CHENEY (5/13/2013): I think it's one of the worst incidents that's frankly, that I can recall in my career. ... They claimed it was because of a demonstration video, so they wouldn't have to admit it was really all about their incompetence. ... They lied.

(mixed audience disgust and laughter)


STEWART: After the lies you told, you don't get to doubt anyone's credibility. If a baseball breaks your window, and your grandkid walks through the door with a baseball bat, and tells you that Zack and Cody from The Suite Life did it, while they were playing a game with SpongeBob, you just have to fucking choke that down! (wild audience cheering and applause)

Now listen to me! And listen close! All of these scandals could add up to very bad repercussions for the Obama administration. And many conservatives and Republicans are entitled to their moment of righteous schadenfreude. But guess what? History didn't start Friday. And Obama administration transgressions don't wipe away yours, which are many and grievous.


Co-chairmen of independent Benghazi review blow the whistle on Darrell Issa

FULL LETTER HERE: http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2013/images/05/16/pickeringletter.pdf

"The public deserves to hear your questions and our answers," wrote former Ambassador Thomas Pickering and former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen, co-chairmen of the Accountability Review Board that was convened to investigate the September 11th attack.

The dispute between Issa and the co-chairmen came to a head after neither Pickering nor Mullen attended a May 8 House Oversight Committee hearing on the attacks, sparking a heated back and forth about who was invited and when. The rhetoric intensified Sunday during a highly contentious joint appearance with Issa and Pickering on NBC's "Meet the Press" in which Issa maintained the two "refused to come before our committee." Pickering insisted that he was not invited despite expressing a willingness to testify.


Issa also suggested on the program that Pickering and Mullen meet with the committee behind closed doors so as not to create "some sort of stage show." But the two assert in their letter that a public hearing is a "more appropriate forum" and accuse Issa of changing his "position on the terms of our appearance."

"Having taken liberal license to call into question the Board's work, it is surprising that you now maintain that members of the committee need a closed-door proceeding before being able to ask "informed questions" at a public hearing," they write in the letter.



"I" before "E" except after "C


"Social Welfarists"/Tea Partiers -? Is NOT Why Were They Targeted BUT Why Weren't They Disqualified?

Anyone who was interested in forming a 501(c)4 would or should go to the IRS website and see if they qualified to be one. On the website is an in-depth publication that has been there for several years detailing what the requirements are. From this document, it is very clear that the IRS will make the determination on "facts and circumstances". One could therefore expect that the IRS will be asking for very specific facts and circumstances to make their determination. One of the disqualifiers is that the entity cannot be involved directly or indirectly in political campaigns.


Now the Tea Party has "Party" in its name, it has a platform, it endorses candidates, it campaigns.
There is no way in he** it's not a political entity.

Right now there are miles and miles of videotape documenting that very fact.

Where are all the journalists who should be investigating why and how this political party got the false cover of a "social welfare organization" so it didn't have to disclose its donors????

The question is NOT why they were targeted. That is very evident. The question is why weren't they disqualified???

On the humorous karma side, there is the fact that this rightwing organization is officially designated as a "social welfare" group formed to promote the "common good".

I wonder how Ted Cruz and Rand Paul are going to like being called "Social Welfarists".


Now seems like an especially appropriate time to re-read this from 1998

It’ll swallow you in
Posted by DougJ at 10:07 am

I re-read this article from 1998 at least once a year, and I suggest you do the same. Now seems like an especially appropriate time:

They call the capital city their “town.”

And their town has been turned upside down.

With some exceptions, the Washington Establishment is outraged by the president’s behavior in the Monica Lewinsky scandal. The polls show that a majority of Americans do not share that outrage. Around the nation, people are disgusted but want to move on; in Washington, despite Clinton's gains with the budget and the Mideast peace talks, people want some formal acknowledgment that the president’s behavior has been unacceptable. They want this, they say, not just for the sake of the community, but for the sake of the country and the presidency as well.


Two Rather Important Details About the IRS “Scandal”


May 15, 2013 10:55 AM

Two Rather Important Details About the IRS “Scandal”

I know we’re already getting into the post-factual stage of what Roll Call’s Stu Rothenberg is gleefully calling the “triple play” of Obama “scandals,” where the focus is on alleged cover-ups and who-knew-what-when and Big Narratives and all sorts of third- and fourth-order considerations. But there are two aspects of the “IRS Scandal” that keep nagging at me.

The first is nicely covered by TNR’s Noam Scheiber today: the applications for 501(c)(4) status that are at issue are not part and parcel of some burdensome government regulation of political speech. They are voluntary, and simply provide the applicant an advance assurance of tax-exempt status before they file their tax returns for a given year. If they are reasonably sure they aren’t afoul of the rules for 501(c)(4) organizations, they don’t need the certification at all. So the idea that the IRS was “shutting down” Tea Party and other groups by sitting on their applications or requiring them to deal with burdensome questionnaires is an exaggeration from the get-go. Besides, most groups like this don’t (and shouldn’t) wind up having the sort of “profits” that generate tax liability to begin with.

But the whole role of the IRS in this “scandal” raises a much more fundamental question. If the entity in question wasn’t the IRS but the FEC (hard as it is to imagine the FEC having any “teeth” to “bite” political advocacy and campaign groups), would anyone other than campaign finance wonks care about this whole issue? Probably not. And that’s not because in this kind of case the IRS was in a position to kick down doors and take serious action against the groups in question (which, again, probably had little or no tax liability unless they were really running a crooked game). It’s because the IRS is a great national devil-figure with a history of using over-aggressive tactics against people without the resources to fight them, and the idea of that agency “targeting” anyone is quite naturally frightening, even if the actual consequences of being “targeted” in these cases were not that serious.

Yeah, some groups undoubtedly incurred unnecessary legal expenses in dealing with IRS pettifogging, and the more paranoid among them probably feared ancillary tax actions against individuals. But before we all decide this incident represented a big step towards totalitarian government, a closer look at the actual situation would be helpful.

by Ed Kilgore

Stealth Medicine

FOX Is Just SO Easily Exposed For What It Is

The claim that Obama was absent the night of the Benghazi attack has been repeatedly debunked, both by former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin E. Dempsey.

KRAUTHAMMER: And where was the president on that night? We've all seen the video and the pictures--well the picture of the situation room--of Obama on the night of the Osama raid. And everybody looks at that, oh yeah he was really involved in that. Show me a picture of where he was on the night of the attack in Libya.

In fact, the very photo Krauthammer requested has been available on the White House Flickr page since at least January:

Sept. 11, 2012
"Denis McDonough, Deputy National Security Advisor, left, updates the President and Vice President on the situation in the Middle East and North Africa. National Security Advisor Tom Donilon and Chief of Staff Jack Lew are at right." (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)


Go to Page: « Prev 1 ... 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 ... 1292 Next »