Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:
The IRS has apologized for treating Conservative groups differently from Liberal groups.
It’s not enough. The IRS under the Obama Administration intentionally engaged in viewpoint discrimination based on political affiliation. That’s the most fundamental of all First Amendment violations, and it was done by agents of the government while performing their official duties. That’s a violation of 42 United States Code 1983 and entitles the aggrieved person to damages plus attorney’s fees for bringing the action.
Who’s the aggrieved person? Mitt Romney in specific and the nation in general. What are the damages? Trillions.
Campaign Finance law says an individual can only donate so much to a political campaign but a non-profit corporation set up to “educate” the public can spend more and, if the corporation qualifies under Section 501(c)3 of the tax code, donations are tax-deductible although the corporation’s activities must be limited to retain the deduction. Set up a dozen such corporations, raise millions of dollars, spend it on advertising to “educate” the public and thereby influence the voters.
When the IRS subjected Conservative groups to more rigorous scrutiny than Liberal groups before awarding 501(c)3 status, the IRS deprived Conservative groups of a meaningful opportunity to raise funds to get out their message, to educate the public on their side of the issues, to inform the voters of the Conservative alternative. It deprived Conservatives of political speech at the most crucial time – right before the election. This is banana-republic voter suppression and Obama’s IRS completely got away with it. Nobody was fired. Nobody was jailed. Nobody cares.
Pretend the IRS had done it to groups organized by Blacks, or Muslims, and imagine the outrage. An apology years later, from a different administration, wouldn’t be good enough for them. It’s not good enough for me.
Joe Doakes
The only groups the Feds have been more dilatory about apologizing to have been slaves and Indians.
Which should tell you something.
Apologies, schmologies… if the DoJ doesn’t prosecute and/or recompense the aggrieved parties, the so-called apologies are just like “get out of jail free” cards… and so far, they’re not “just like”, they just are.
As to the slaves and Indians, I reject the notion the present-day Feds need to apologize for anything. You can’t apologize on behalf of someone else – well, leftists can because they’ll dress up the pointless and cost-free effort as being meaningful and serious. If I had anything to be absolved, one of my forefathers fought in the Civil War. As to the Indians, they lost their war with the Euro settlers – I ain’t apologizing for that. And if the DoJ (again) isn’t going to prosecute/recompense for the actions of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, any apology is again pointless. On the other hand, it seems to me that opening up Indian lands for casinos was a brilliant idea for recompensation.
My take on the IRS; if the 8D form filed for this does not include any changes in policies, personnel, and the like, it is not accepted. Any corrective action report without corrective action simply tells me that the agency is A-OK with things exactly as transpired.
And since Obama trumpeted it, you know exactly WHY nobody got fired. It’s because they would have told exactly who told them to do things they way they did.
February 2, 2014, while the JD’s and congresses investigations of the IRS delaying conservative group’s tax exempt status were still ongoing:
O’REILLY: So you’re saying there was no corruption there at all.
OBAMA: That’s not what I’m saying.
O’REILLY: I want to know what you’re saying. You’re the leader of the country.
OBAMA: Absolutely.
O’REILLY: You’re saying no corruption, none?
OBAMA: There was some bone-headed decisions.
O’REILLY: Bone-headed decisions. But no mass corruption?
OBAMA: Not even mass corruption. Not even a smidgeon of corruption.
So Obama was lying and telegraphing his opinion to his JD. Great going Democrats.
I like how Eric Holder has come out against the apology, despite the fact that Lois Lerner admitted the core of the problem in a congressional hearing. Um, Eric, exactly what part of adjusting bureaucratic procedures because of perceived political affiliation do you NOT find offensive? And if you believe the law does not apply, why the **** didn’t you resign instead of putting together a whitewash for the boss?