ChrisWeigant.com

Please support ChrisWeigant.com this holiday season!

Friday Talking Points [260] -- So You Think You Can Rant?

[ Posted Friday, May 31st, 2013 – 16:25 PDT ]

If that title drew you in, I have to warn you up front that the ranting contest suggestion is at the very bottom of this article, so feel free to just scroll down to it if that's all you're here for. Full disclosure, and all of that -- I just didn't have any better title for this weekly wrapup, sorry. Enough navel-gazing, though, let's get on with it.

Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper signed into law this week the first regulations setting up a legal recreational marijuana market since the Drug War began. This marks a historic milestone (legal weed won't actually become reality until next year), but even though it is now seven months from when the state's voters approved the idea, there is still no word from the Justice Department on how the disparity between the state's new laws and federal laws will be handled by the feds. I guess Eric Holder's got other things to do, or something. Maybe he just "spaced out" on the whole thing, who knows?

Holder has been busy this week holding off-the-record meetings with the press about how the Justice Department can be more transparent about upholding the First Amendment's freedom of the press. Insert your own oxymoronic joke here, I guess. The icing on the irony cake was that information about the meetings was leaked to the press in advance by an unnamed source. A few major media organizations refused to even attend the meetings unless they were on the record, so bully for them for standing on principle. Since I wasn't invited, I wrote a column about what I'd say to Holder instead.

Barack Obama appeared in an boosterism ad for the Jersey shore this week (it's hard to call it anything else, really), and played boardwalk arcade games with New Jersey's governor, Chris Christie. Has anyone actually told him what happened to Charlie Crist after he got too close to Obama? Anyone hoping for Christie to win the 2016 Republican presidential nomination has got to have mixed feelings about the photo op, I suppose. Both Christie and Obama actually looked like they were enjoying themselves, though.

Obama's standing up today for keeping student loan rates low, rejecting the bill House Republicans passed as too hard on students. This is one of those political fights with a built-in timeline, which means (in today's Washington) that something may actually get done. We'll see whether the final bill is closer to Obama's ideas or the House's. Personally, I think Elizabeth Warren's got the right idea: set the student loan rates the exact same as the federal government charges banks to borrow money. It's only fair, right?

The other brewing fracas is over a wily scheme President Obama has come up with to... um, do exactly what the Constitution mandates he do. Why is this news? No reason, except that Republicans want to change the rules in the middle of the game and are inexplicably (as usual) charging that Obama is the one tampering with the rules. They floated the talking point that Obama was engaging in "court-packing," and the entire media pretty much loudly laughed at this description (myself included, I have to admit).

Former senator and presidential candidate Bob Dole gave an extraordinary interview on Fox News last Sunday morning, in which he sadly admitted that neither he nor Ronald Reagan nor Richard Nixon could get elected in today's Republican Party. He then went on to give his party some sage advice, but we're going to save that for the Friday Talking Points part of the program.

 

Most Impressive Democrat of the Week

As previously mentioned, Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper signed a historic law this week, setting up guidelines for his state to usher in a fully-regulated recreational marijuana market. This is the first time since the War On (Some) Drugs started almost a century ago, so it's big news.

We'll give Hickenlooper an Honorable Mention for signing the law, but we have to say we're still a little annoyed that he campaigned against the ballot initiative (even though he made a lot of money brewing beer himself), and about that crack he made about Cheetos and Goldfish when it passed. We have mixed feelings, in other words.

Instead, our Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week is one of the newest Democrats, as Rhode Island Governor Lincoln Chafee formally switched to being a registered Democrat this week. Chafee was pretty much the last of the dying breed of liberal Republicans (yes, there did used to be such things...), consistently rated as the most liberal Republican senator during his entire time in office by conservatives and liberals alike. He was appointed to serve out his father's term in 1999, and got beat by Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse in the wave election of 2006. Since then, he has become a registered Independent and won the governor's race in 2010. As re-election approaches, Chafee decided to complete his political evolution and openly embrace the Democratic Party.

Other Democrats who were thinking of running for the seat are quite likely disappointed by this news, but we would like to think that most Democrats will welcome Lincoln Chafee to their party with open arms. There's no better way to show your party's "big tent" nature than when politicians from the other side see the error of their ways and decide to sign up.

For doing so this week, Lincoln Chaffee is our Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week award-winner. See, Republicans? Not only will you be welcomed, you'll actually get awards for making the trek across the aisle! Step right up, there's room for everyone!

[Congratulate Rhode Island Governor Lincoln Chafee on his official contact page, to let him know you appreciate his party switch.]

 

Most Disappointing Democrat of the Week

Maybe we should create a new category for the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week award, called: "Wait... what?!?"

Tea Party Republican Representative Michele Bachmann announced she would not be running for re-election next year, much to the delight of all who value factual political discourse and much to the dismay of pundits and late-night comics everywhere (because we won't be able to make fun of her anymore). The Left's online reaction to this announcement was nothing short of orgiastic (which we just had to participate in, yesterday).

But today brings the news that the Democrat who came within a few thousand votes of knocking Bachmann out of Congress last year has suddenly announced that he won't be running, either. Which is where the "Wait... what?!?" part comes in.

I guess you've got to give Jim Graves credit for being honest. He admitted he ran last time and was running this time for the sole reason of getting Bachmann out of Congress. Now that that's been accomplished, he's hanging up his spurs before the next cattle drive begins. Or something (sorry, that's really not much of a Minnesota metaphor, I fully realize). Graves insists he never really wanted to be a politician, he just thought someone should remove Bachmann from office, and nobody else seemed to be doing so.

Now, Graves would have had a tough time winning without Bachmann in the race. This is a district, remember, that elected her four times to represent them -- even after she said a whole bunch of crazy-ass stuff on national television. So it's a pretty conservative district to begin with. Without Mrs. Coo-Coo Bananas on the ticket, candidate "Mr. or Mrs. A. Generic Republican" would likely win the seat back for the party. I mean, look at what just happened down in South Carolina, where they decided to send Mark Sanford (R-Appalachian Trail) back to the House.

So I suppose it is understandable why Graves dropped out. He did show a refreshing amount of honesty in explaining why he was doing so, uncharacteristic for anyone in the political realm. But still, he already had name recognition in the district and came within a hair of winning last time -- meaning that any Democrat who now runs probably won't even have as good a chance as Graves would have (because they'll be starting from scratch). Which is disappointing enough, and which earns Graves the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week award this week.

[You could try to contact Jim Graves on his campaign contact page, to let him know what you think of his actions, but this page likely won't be up for very much longer, so you should hurry.]

 

Friday Talking Points

Volume 260 (5/31/13)

Our Friday Talking Points this week are split in two parts. The first part is all on health care, since Democrats really need to start touting the unexpectedly good news on this front now -- because Republicans have already announced that their entire campaign in 2014 is going to consist of trying to pin every stubbed toe in America on Obamacare and paint the whole thing as a giant failure. They're making no secret of this, they fully admit that this is going to be their playbook. If Democrats don't get in there first and play some offense, then they're going to be playing defense all next year.

The second part is just gratuitous Republican-bashing. Just because.

 

1
   Good news on the cost of medical care

This should be the first argument out of any Democrats' mouth when the subject of medical costs or health insurance comes up.

"Part of the reason the federal budget deficit is now projected to be less than half what it was when Obama took office is that medical costs are not rising as fast as they used to. For the past few years, inflation in medical costs has gotten a lot more realistic. As the economy recovers, some predicted that costs would start to dramatically climb because they blamed the recession for the slowdown, but now it appears that is not happening -- they were wrong, in other words. And California just published the prices for their Obamacare health insurance exchange, and the costs were a lot lower than the doomsayers predicted. When you look at the actual facts, it seems the naysayers didn't know what they were talking about."

 

2
   Medicare lives!

This one just came out today, and also needs some cheerleading from the Democratic sidelines.

"Medicare was predicted to only survive until 2017 when Barack Obama came to office. The most recent projection is that the program is now fine until 2026 -- two years further into the future than the last report. This is the dramatic sort of change that slowing the rise in medical costs has brought. Republicans tried to sell the idea that they would 'save Medicare' during the last election, and the voters just didn't believe them. For good reason, it turns out. Medicare is doing better and better with a Democrat in the White House, and I think that deserves some acknowledgment, don't you?"

 

3
   Immigrants doing their fair share for Medicare

This one is really a double-whammy, since it sets two traps for Republicans to fall into.

"Medicare has actually been boosted enormously by the contributions from immigrants. Harvard Medical School just reported that immigrants' contributions to Medicare showed a $115 billion surplus from 2002 to 2009, while the native-born population showed a $28 billion deficit. Immigrants are younger, and the baby boomers are retiring. Far from being a drag on the federal budget, immigrants are contributing more than their fair share and are in fact sustaining Medicare during the aging of the native-born."

 

4
   Closed for repairs

Bob Dole says that Bob Dole couldn't get elected in today's Republican Party, because the party is no longer interested in "ideas." Can't argue with that, really.

"Bob Dole last week made an excellent suggestion to the Republican National Committee. He told them they should shut their doors for the entire rest of the year, and hang a sign on the door stating, quote, closed for repairs, unquote. Like many Republicans who are horrified at what the extremists are doing to their party, Bob Dole is a voice crying for moderation in the Tea Party wilderness. I think his idea is an excellent one, and the only reason I am comfortable giving the Republican Party advice like this is that I know full well they're simply not going to act on such advice -- from me, from Bob Dole, from anyone. If the ghost of Ronald Reagan appeared before the Republican Party and told them to change their ways, they still wouldn't listen. It's a shame, really, but that's the position they've staked out for themselves."

 

5
   GOP War On Women (continued)

It seems this is becoming almost a weekly thing. Maybe I should just dictate that one Friday Talking Point each week will be the War On Women update, or something.

"A report showing the growing earning power of women brought some bizarre reactions from conservatives this week, which can be summed up as nostalgia for the 'keep them barefoot and pregnant' days. Sorry to be so offensive, but I'm not the one espousing such antediluvian views. There was one ray of hope from Republicans on women, though, as a Republican state representative in Oklahoma penned the most amazing article I've seen in a long time. Allow me to read an extended quote from this incredible article:

What happened to the Republican Party that I joined? The party where conservative presidential candidate Barry Goldwater felt women should have the right to control their own destiny? The party where President Ronald Reagan said a poor person showing up in the emergency room deserved needed treatment regardless of ability to pay?

. . .

Is my thinking too clouded by my experiences in the real world? Experiences like having a preacher, in the privacy of an exam room say, "Doc, you have heard me preach against abortion but now my 15-year-old daughter is pregnant, where can I send her?" Or maybe it was that 17-year-old foreign exchange student who said, "I really made a mistake last night. Can you prescribe a morning-after pill for me? If I return to my home country pregnant, life as I know it will be over."

What happened to the Republican Party that felt that the government has no business being in an exam room, standing between me and my patient? Where did the party go that felt some decisions in a woman's life should be made not by legislators and government, but rather by the women, her conscience, her doctor and her God?

"As I said, this is truly an extraordinary article, from a doctor who has delivered over 800 babies, and never performed an abortion. If it were up to me, when the RNC hangs up its 'closed for repairs' sign, I'd put Doug Cox of Oklahoma in charge of rewriting the party's position on women's health."

 

6
   Yeah, that's the ticket!

From the "you just can't make this stuff up" files...

"Phyllis Schlafly has joined the chorus of anti-immigration on the Right, but her advice is a bit novel: just ignore all minority voters altogether and concentrate instead on turning out white folks to vote. No, no -- I'm serious -- that's what she's telling Republicans. Not only should the Republican Party kill the comprehensive immigration bill, but they should instead concentrate on turning out the white vote. Here's the quote: '[T]here is not the slightest bit of evidence [Latinos] are going to vote Republican. And the people the Republicans should reach out to are the white votes -- the white voters who didn't vote in the last election.' It's hard to imagine a more out-of-touch position that that, these days -- but it wouldn't surprise me in the least if the Republicans do decide to follow this strategy. It worked so well for them in 2012, after all."

 

7
   So you think you can rant?

I suggested this in yesterday's column on the Michele Bachmann news, and the more I think about it, the better an idea it seems...

"You know, after watching the popularity arc of such Tea Party favorites as Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann, I can't help but wonder why they don't just skip over what appears to be the hardest part of becoming famous for them -- the part about serving in office. Why not just go straight towards being a media darling on the Right? The Fox network could get in on the action in a big way, and broadcast a reality show once a year to search the nation for the next Tea Party superstar. They could call it 'So You Think You Can Rant?' and hire Palin, Bachmann, and Donald Trump to be judges. I bet it'd be a ratings smash, personally."

-- Chris Weigant

 

All-time award winners leaderboard, by rank
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground
Cross-posted at: The Huffington Post

 

31 Comments on “Friday Talking Points [260] -- So You Think You Can Rant?”

  1. [1] 
    Michale wrote:

    If that title drew you in, I have to warn you up front that the ranting contest suggestion is at the very bottom of this article, so feel free to just scroll down to it if that's all you're here for.

    Why do I feel... um.... er.... "targeted"... :D

    Holder has been busy this week holding off-the-record meetings with the press about how the Justice Department can be more transparent about upholding the First Amendment's freedom of the press.

    Meant to ask ya when ya discussed how your invite to that shindig got lost in the mail...

    Would you attend that meeting, knowing it would be off the record and you could ONLY report about it what Holder SAID you could report about it??

    Washington Post: The Justice Department has allowed us to say AG Holder supports press freedom
    http://washingtonexaminer.com/washington-post-the-justice-department-has-allowed-us-to-say-ag-holder-supports-press-freedom/article/2530898

    You simply CAN'T make this stuff up..

    I am betting absolutely NO ONE from the Left will bat an eye to this. 'Cept you and me, of course. :D

    Barack Obama appeared in an boosterism ad for the Jersey shore this week (it's hard to call it anything else, really), and played boardwalk arcade games with New Jersey's governor, Chris Christie.

    It was "Bowling-Gate" all over again!! :D

    See, Republicans? Not only will you be welcomed, you'll actually get awards for making the trek across the aisle! Step right up, there's room for everyone!

    Can you say, "Arlen Specter"??? :D

    chorus of anti-immigration on the Right,

    Sorry, there IS no "anti-immigration" from the Right..

    What's coming from the Right (AND the center) is anti-ILLEGAL-immigration)

    Of course the Left is all for illegal immigrants. Or should I say, "undocumented Democrats"....

    "Th-th-th-THAT'S ALL FOLKS"
    -Porky Pig

    :D

    Michale

  2. [2] 
    Michale wrote:

    Speaking of things that no one will bat an eye to...

    Feds suggest anti-Muslim speech can be 'punished'...
    'Internet postings subject to prosecutions'...

    http://www.tullahomanews.com/?p=15360

    Did you know that you could be charged with a felony by the federal government for posting online about how bad Islam is??

    Welcome to AMERIKA, courtesy of Emperor Barack The First and his court of the Looney Left....

    :^/

    Michale

  3. [3] 
    Michale wrote:

    Obama's standing up today for keeping student loan rates low, rejecting the bill House Republicans passed as too hard on students.

    Yea, but Obama's plan saves students a whopping $0.25 a day!!

    Whoaaa!!! A student can make a phone call with that, eh! :D

    Michale

  4. [4] 
    Michale wrote:

    On a sadder note...

    Jean Stapleton, best known for playing Edith Bunker in 'All in the Family,' dies at 90
    http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2013/06/01/all-in-family-jean-stapleton-dies-at-0/

    Edith Bunker has stifled herself for the last time...

    She will be missed...

    Michale

  5. [5] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    those were the days...

  6. [6] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    CW,

    jim graves as most disappointing??? weak! he accomplished his mission and is ending his political aspirations; how is that anything other than admirable? did you read the news this week on the FOIA request vis-a-vis the occupy crackdowns? there's so much to be disappointed with, why pick on jim graves?

    ~joshua

  7. [7] 
    Michale wrote:

    nypoet22 wrote:

    those were the days...

    Well said... :D

    Michale

  8. [8] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    still think the DHS/FBI decisions to focus on occupy protestors and ACORN organizers had no negative impact?

    http://www.justiceonline.org/press-coverage/unaware-of-tsarnaev-warnings.html

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    still think the DHS/FBI decisions to focus on occupy protestors and ACORN organizers had no negative impact?

    http://www.justiceonline.org/press-coverage/unaware-of-tsarnaev-warnings.html

    I think you can make a case for that..

    So, in other words, the Obama Administration dropped the ball... :D

    You KNEW I would not be able to resist going there, right?? :D

    Michale

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:
  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    I know what ya'all are saying...

    Ya'all are saying that Tea Party groups are political and that targeting them for investigations is prudent and logical..

    But there is one simple point that totally negates that theory..

    Why do it in secret?

    If it is prudent and logical to target Tea Party groups that (everyone knows!!!) flout fund raising laws and the evidence that supports this conclusion is so over-whelmingly obvious, why not announce:

    "THIS is what we are doing and THIS is why we are doing it!! So shut the f*ck up!!"

    If the targeting is so above board, logical and LEGAL and so *NOT* a Right v Left thing, why hide it???

    I think we ALL know the answer to that..

    Because it WAS political, it WAS to influence an election... Why else would the majority of the targeting be in the critical MUST WIN battleground state of Ohio??

    Do I need to go back to "chains of evidence" and how investigators approach criminal investigations?? :D

    WHO has motive, WHO benefits....

    The evidence in this crime is clear and conclusive..

    Unless you want to make the case that 90+ (and growing) people in the IRS had their cat kicked by Tea Party members, the ONLY logical reason to target Tea Party groups would be to limit their fund raising.

    And the ONLY beneficiaries of such targeting were the Obama Administration...

    Michale

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    If the targeting is so above board, logical and LEGAL and so *NOT* a Right v Left thing, why hide it???

    "Why the two orders, Colonel!? If you gave an order that Santiago wasn't to be touched and your orders are always followed, why would Santiago be in any danger? Why would it be necessary to transfer him off the base?"
    -Tom Cruise, A FEW GOOD MEN

    :D

    Michale

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    DB,

    Exactly, Exactly, Exactly. Because those groups told the IRS they were not trying to raise funds for the election. They were pretending to be "social welfare" organizations & non-political. They were applying for tax-exempt status at the time you, so accurately, state they were raising funds for a political purpose.

    I am again, constrained to point out that, according to IRS regs, fund raising is not illegal.

    Basically your argument is based on the faulty and unsupported conclusion that ONLY Tea Party 501 groups are involved in fund raising and Leftist 501 groups are as pure as the driven snow and are above reproach and suspicion.

    And THAT is the EPITOME of a Right v Left issue...

    Where was the scrutiny for BLACK AMERICANS FOR OBAMA and MEDIA MATTERS and groups like that??

    Michale

  14. [14] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    If the targeting is so above board, logical and LEGAL and so *NOT* a Right v Left thing, why hide it???

    i'll pose an alternate question. if our premise is that the targeting was done to win an election, why wasn't it done to the biggest groups with the most money? there are plenty of allegedly apolitical conservative groups to choose from, why only the anti-establishment ones?

    ~joshua

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    i'll pose an alternate question. if our premise is that the targeting was done to win an election, why wasn't it done to the biggest groups with the most money? there are plenty of allegedly apolitical conservative groups to choose from, why only the anti-establishment ones?

    Were those groups in Ohio???

    The better question still remains.. If everything was perfectly legal, legitimate and apolitical, WHY do it in secret?

    Why not ANNOUNCE the policy???

    Michale

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    there are plenty of allegedly apolitical conservative groups to choose from,

    For example???

    Groups that are "apolitical" and in a battleground state, are filing for exempt status under 501(c)(4) and are a threat to a re-election...

    I can't think of a one...

    But I really don't follow politics all that much.. :D

    But I think the big point remains.

    Why was done (attempted) in total and complete secret with (somewhat) plausible deniability...

    I refer to my A FEW GOOD MEN quote..

    If it was totally logical, rational and justified, why did it have to be done in secret..

    Michale

  17. [17] 
    db wrote:

    Michale,

    # varied. The scrutiny wasn't hidden or secret.

    #13

    "I am again, constrained to point out that, according to IRS regs, fund raising is not illegal."

    I am in full agreement. Fundraising is fine. Doing sso for a political purpose is where the problem comes.

    Media Matters has never held a political convention, has never run a specific candidate, and has never held a political rally. The Tea party has done each.

    I am unfamiliar with "Black Folks for Obama". I'd be glad to send them a few bucks but I would object to their receiving tax-exempt status.

    No one should ask the community at large to subsidize their political contributions.

    Lenin said the Capitalist will sell you the rope with which you intend to hang him. The Tea Party goes further. They want President Obama to pay for the rope.

  18. [18] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Program Note

    Our ISP had a massive meltdown this afternoon, but we should be back up and running again.

    Apologies for the interruption in service. Today's column will be up shortly...

    -CW

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    DB,

    The scrutiny wasn't hidden or secret.

    Oh bullshit..

    Then why did Obama express surprise and anger when it was exposed??

    Why did this activity have to be "reported" by a planted question in a Tax Law Seminar??

    Why did IRS officials LIE to Congress about this VERY activity???

    Why are *Democrats* expressing shock and dismay and calling these illegal targetings "un american"..

    If this was not done in secret, if it was fully disclosed and announced, why is all of the afore happening??

    If you are going to just make stuff up, we're going to get no where.. :D

    I am in full agreement. Fundraising is fine. Doing sso for a political purpose is where the problem comes.

    Not according to IRS regs. Fundraising and picketing are perfectly acceptable within certain guidelines.. And those conservative groups that were targeted fell within those guidelines..

    Media Matters has never held a political convention, has never run a specific candidate, and has never held a political rally.

    Again, bullshit... Media Matters is another 501 group that is neck deep in supporting liberal candidates and liberal causes. They are the Tea Party of the Left.. Just not nearly as effective..

    I am unfamiliar with "Black Folks for Obama". I'd be glad to send them a few bucks but I would object to their receiving tax-exempt status.

    Apparently, Obama's IRS doesn't have a problem with B.A.F.O. being tax exempt..

    Why is that??

    Here are some other Leftist groups, including an OCCUPY group that got tax exempt status likity split while conservative groups were targeted...

    Americans United for Change enjoys 501(c)4 tax-exempt status. The organization exists, according to its own website, “to amplify the progressive message--to contribute to a grass roots groundswell for progressive policies.
    scribd.com/doc/145523984/Americans-United-for-Change

    The Ruckus Society is part of the Occupy Movement and is a 501(c)3 funded by George Soros.
    According to it's website:
    The Brass Liberation Orchestra accompanied a second round of the “I Will Survive…Capitalism” flashmob before leading the crowd of over 1,000 people onto the Bank of America, and deployed a giant balloon banner with our friends at [Rainforest Action Network] reading “Defend Human Dignity: Challenge Corporate Power”...The day of course culminated in the truly mass marches to the Port of Oakland to shut down all operations at the Ports for the night. Some reports say 50,000 people marched and danced the three miles to the ports from Camp, and it was truly an unforgettable experience, marching in a sea of thousands at sunset.

    scribd.com/doc/145524752/Ruckus

    Women’s Action for New Directions (WAND) is another leftist organization funded by George Soros that engages in activity designed to transform politics and America. It is another 501(c)4 tax-exempt group. The organization also boasts a “Students Action Network for New Directions” that encourages leftist students “to become politically active, to vote, and to network with other WAND members.”
    scribd.com/doc/145525273/Wand

    The New World Foundation, like so many others, uses the money from industrialists who built America to help reduce America. Cyrus McCormick’s daughter formed the NWF to help transform the world, starting with America. The foundation enjoys 501(c)3 tax exempt status and exists, according to its IRS Form 990, to support “community activists across America and around the world.”

    The IRS Form 990 also states that the NWF seek to “build stronger alliances for social justice, environmental justice...while encouraging democratic participation to achieve real and lasting [sic].” The form details the mission of “mobilizing of the least enfranchised in working class and people of color communities.”
    In 2010, NWF spent over $15 million. It funnels money to a variety of activist leftist groups like the Coal River Mountain Watch, Colorado Progressive Action and National Peoples Action.

    scribd.com/doc/145525602/New-World-Foundation

    Fierce is a New York-based organization that employs the Saul Alinsky organizing model toward activist gay issues. Its website unapologetically proclaims that it is “building the leadership and power of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) youth of color,” and “We develop politically conscious leaders.”
    Looking toward the future, as always, “FIERCE is dedicated to cultivating the next generation of social justice movement leaders who are dedicated to ending all forms of oppression.” This unapologetic political mission is also included in the IRS Form 990 submitted by Fierce, so it should not surprise the IRS.
    Fierce also provides a chart showing its organizing model is dedicated first to “Build our Power,” then “Exercise our Power,” and finally “Sustain our Power.”
    Fierce! has 501(c)3 status, making contributions to the overtly political organization tax deductible. Last tax year it spent $529,713 on stipends for activists, travel and other expenses.

    scribd.com/doc/145526090/FIerce

    The Black Alliance for Just Immigration enjoys 501(c)3 status. The organization “advocates for administrative changes to visa, detention and deportation regulations” according to the IRS Form 990 it filed with the IRS.
    Executive Director Gerald Lenoir is quoted as saying that the IRS has never questioned the tax status of the organization.

    scribd.com/doc/145526691/Black-Alliance-for-Just

    scribd.com/doc/145527867/Brennan

    scribd.com/doc/145527308/Voto-Latino

    And so on and so on and so on...

    All those Leftist/Liberal/Progressive groups are tax exempt and they do everything that the conservative groups that were targeted does..

    So, why didn't their fundraising and cause/candidate supporting prevent THEM from having their tax-exempt status withheld??

    No matter how ya'all try to spin it, the actions of the IRS were wrong, illegal and un-american..

    The facts are clear...

    And, if I am not mistaken, FACTS are what we are all about here, right??

    Lenin said the Capitalist will sell you the rope with which you intend to hang him. The Tea Party goes further. They want President Obama to pay for the rope.

    The conservative groups targeted are NO DIFFERENT from the Leftist groups that enjoy unquestioned tax-exempt status..

    The ONLY difference is their political ideology..

    The groups that agree with Obama's ideology get the tax-exempt status.

    The groups that disagree with Obama's ideology do not..

    It's THAT simple..

    "These are the facts of the case. And they are undisputed."
    -Captain Jack Ross, A FEW GOOD MEN

    Michale

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    Today is the day we are going to hear from the "victims" of the IRS targeting..

    IRS victims testify as new agency scandal emerges
    http://apnews.myway.com/article/20130604/DA6MPCKO0.html

    I think I might have a comment or two about this today.. :D

    Seems like these scandals have dampened the spirit of those who think Obama walks on water.. :D

    OK, OK, OK... I promised to reign in my gloating...

    :D

    Michale

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    Basically, the ONLY thing ya'all have going for you is that there is no DIRECT evidence that Obama ordered the IRS targeting..

    But there is plenty of circumstantial evidence to indicate that he did.

    That evidence is bolstered by the fact that there has been half a dozen bullshit stories coming out of the White House, each one proven completely and utterly false...

    Michale

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    Witness List for victims of IRS Targeting..

    Mr. John Eastman
    Chairman, National Organization for Marriage

    Ms. Diane Belsom
    Laurens County Tea Party

    Ms. Becky Gerritson
    Wetumpka Tea Party

    Ms. Karen Kenny
    San Fernando Valley Patriots

    Mr. Kevin Kookogey
    Founder and President, Linchpins of Liberty

    Ms. Sue Martinek
    Coalition for Life of Iowa

    A large cross section of conservative groups, not just Tea Party groups..

    Democrats were told they could invite Liberal/Progressive groups that were also targeted..

    {{{chhiiirrrrrpppp}}} {{chiiiirrrrrrrrppppppp}}

    Not a one could be found...

    Over 500 conservative were targeted by the IRS..

    Not ONE SINGLE Liberal/Progressive group was targeted..

    NOT.... ONE.... SINGLE.... GROUP

    The evidence is clear. The evidence is conclusive...

    Michale

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:
  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06/04/chairman-anti-gay-marriage-group-says-has-proof-irs-leaked-donor-details/

    There's yer felony, people..

    There's your crime...

    Can ANYONE honestly say that nothing improper was done here???

    SERIOUSLY!???

    Michale

  25. [25] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    christ michale, it's no wonder CW rarely if ever sees my posts. never attended the "less is more" symposium? funny, just when i mention ACORN, it shows up in the news again...

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/04/defund-acorn_n_3384060.html

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    christ michale, it's no wonder CW rarely if ever sees my posts. never attended the "less is more" symposium?

    What's that?? :D

    It's not my fault that no one wants to talk when Obama is taking lumps.. :D

    Seriously, yea, I know..

    But it was no different around here during the Bush years. Remember Abu Ghraib?? The spewage was fast and furious.

    funny, just when i mention ACORN, it shows up in the news again...

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/04/defund-acorn_n_3384060.html

    You have the pulse of HuffPo..

    Not sure if that's a good thing or not.. :D

    Michale

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    But it was no different around here during the Bush years. Remember Abu Ghraib?? The spewage was fast and furious.

    Ooops.. Wrong timeline.. :D

    My bust...

    Michale

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    christ michale, it's no wonder CW rarely if ever sees my posts. never attended the "less is more" symposium?

    I have been wracking my brain to come up with a solution to this dilemma...

    Then I read this....

    Dept. of Homeland Security: Laptops, Phones Can Be Searched Based on Hunches
    http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/06/05/dept-of-homeland-security-laptops-phones-can-be-searched-based-on-hunches/

    ... and it hit me.

    The GRAND solution...

    What's the biggest point of contention around here??

    Well, as near as I can tell *my* position is that ya'all (with notable exceptions that know who they are) give Obama a pass on things that you would savage a Republican over because of the '-D' after Obama's name..

    The fact that ya'all (previous caveat in place) deny this, despite the OVERWHELMING evidence that supports the conclusion is the biggest bone of contention...

    As near as I can tell...

    So, it seems to me the solution is clear...

    Simply concede the point..

    I know, I know. It sounds ridiculous.. "Just agree with me and all will be well".. Yea, it sounds totally bogus..

    BUT.....

    But come on people! It's not as if ya'all are really fooling anyone besides yourselves...

    I can close my eyes, throw a dart and hit anyone of a dozen different instances where ya'all (caveat) would have savaged a GOP'er for the EXACT actions of Obama and his Administration.

    TSA, DOJ, DEA, FBI, IRS.....

    The list is ENDLESS of crap that you would not have tolerated under a GOP Administration that ya'all utter nary a peep with a DEM Administration..

    Think of the upside..

    I would have actually NO ARGUMENT whatsoever to make!!

    It would be like, "Ya'all are so in the bag for Obama!!!"

    And ya'all would be like, "Yea we are!!!"

    And I would be like, "Yea and!!??? well, awww right!!" and I would have absolutely NOTHING to comment about!

    I am just sayin.... If ya'all really want to shut me up... Just concede what I already know to be true...

    Obama is your guy and ya'all won't say anything against him...

    Again, standard caveats apply...

    I'm just sayin'....

    Michale

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is secretly carrying out a domestic surveillance program under which it is collecting business communications records involving Americans under a hotly debated section of the Patriot Act, according to a highly classified court order disclosed on Wednesday night.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/06/us/us-secretly-collecting-logs-of-business-calls.html?hp&_r=1&

    Wait for it.... Wait for it..... Wait for it.....

    {{chhiiirrrrrpppp}} {{{chirrrrrpppp}}} {chirrrrrpppppp}

    Nothing...

    {siiigggghhhhhhh}

    Michale

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    "Well, folks, the mystery is over. The winner has been revealed. After a month of waiting, it turns out an 84-year-old woman in Florida has won the $590 million Powerball lottery. $590 million, 84 years old. I bet her kids regret putting grandma in the nursing home now. Huh? Yeah, no. 'We love you grandma! we were just coming to see you next weekend. We didn't know!'

    It's already gone to her head. She already had big rims put on her Rascal scooter, you know. She's got the -- she's going all out. Now, as for how much tax she's going to have to pay on that $590 million, the IRS said it's too soon to tell 'cause they don't know whether she's a Republican or a Democrat. So it's going to be a while -- it's going to take a while to figure that out. Yeah."
    -Jay Leno

    "It's funny because it's true.."
    -Homer Simpson

    :D

    Michale

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    How ironic that 64 years ago today, the "futuristic" novel 1984 was published..

    The bigger irony is that it's Democrats who really made 1984 a reality..

    Ya simply HAVE to appreciate the irony, eh?? :D

    Michale

Comments for this article are closed.
[Powered by WordPress]