The Roots Of The Irs Scandal

[White Dog]

There can be no doubt that President Obama approves of the objectively criminal behavior of the IRS. Why wouldn’t he?

 

 

 

They are targeting (a term that former IRS head Steven Miller objects to) critics of Obama for harassment and extra scrutiny. What does Obama do every time he takes to a microphone?

 

He targets his political opponents: he accuses them of being evil (without having to use the actual word, of course). He says that we want “dirtier air, dirtier water, and less people with health insurance.” His intent is to ensure that people think of his political opponents as disreputable scumbags who don’t deserve even the most basic respect.

Barack Obama’s tactics go far beyond “the Chicago way.” This is straight out of Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals.”

This is straight out of the Kremlin. Obama is not behaving like the leader of the free world, rather, he is behaving like a third-world despot, who uses the apparatchik of the federal government to heavy-handedly smite his political opponents because he can’t beat them in the arena of ideas.

This is why he called opponents “teabaggers.” That’s why he slandered the Supreme Court during the State of the Union in 2010 (incidentally, the heightened scrutiny from the IRS began soon after) for overturning McCain-Feingold, the so-called “campaign finance reform”, which was nothing more than a subversion of the First Amendment.

Wagging his finger, Obama said that the High Court “reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests – including foreign corporations – to spend without limit in our elections. Well I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities.” In 2012, his campaign referred to a Romney donor as a “wealthy individual” with a “less-than-reputable record.” Said donor was subsequently audited three times before Election Day.

 

Obama routinely accuses opponents of wanting to take away “reproductive rights” and return us to the 1950’s. Joe Biden accused Mitt Romney of wanting to put black people “back in chains.” Biden also compared tea partiers to terrorists, leaving Obama to later defend the assertion when he was on his taxpayer funded bus tour during Recovery Summer Redux 2011.

The implications are clear: my opponents are shifty, underhanded reprobates who are looking to subvert the democratic process. They are misogynists, racists, and zenophobes who should not be accorded basic human decency.

 

With those vicious accusations being hurled from the bully pulpit every day, why wouldn’t the IRS be investigating these people? Why wouldn’t the IRS target these groups, when their boss treats them like enemies of the state anytime he can assemble an audience? The IRS is merely acting on what they hear their boss say every day.

When Obama says he is outraged, he’s not outraged that people employed by the government were harassing his political opponents; he’s outraged that they got caught doing it. Why would he be outraged by the collection of information on his opponents that can be used against them when he has shown throughout his political career that he can’t win without that unlawful data collection?

Up until 2012, Obama never won a political race that did not involve illegally obtaining sealed divorce or custody records.

The most important thing to remember in this IRS scandal is that this is not a scandal at all, it’s business as usual for the Progressive Statists of the American Left.

This is the same kind of crooked behavior that the IRS engaged in under Bill Clinton. When a candidate’s political platform is “vote for me because the other guy is evil,” why think twice about using the agencies of government to undermine any opponent’s credibility?

I cannot say this enough: Barack Obama approves of what the IRS has been caught doing.

 

http://www.rightvoicemedia.com/2013/06/the-roots-of-the-irs-scandal/

 

 

 

 

[MLD Woody]

Right Voice Media

 

 

 

Alright...

[calfoxwc]

Excellent article, if you bother to read the content.

 

It's also right on "target".

 

Libs can't justify their emotionalist attacks, irrational venting, and contradictions in stances on issues.

 

So, they resort to personal attacks. Every time, it seems.

[MLD Woody]

Of course you like it, that's the point. That's the point of websites like this. They gain web traffic by writing articles they know you'll already agree with so they can get hits. Then they'll put ads on the site that you'll buy, like Doomsday seeds and scams to buy gold.

 

There isn't any real information here. This isn't a "source". Articles like this don't add much to any debate.

[The Cysko Kid]

Obama is looking increasingly bad. More so every day, and I hate that he wants to arm the Syrian rebels. I hate that a lot, but its impossible to say what he does and does not believe in. You improperly called this an article cal. This isn't an article. It's an editorial. Yellow Journalism. If you were an intelligent person you would learn the difference.

[The Cysko Kid]

It's funny, woody, how he's always talking about how "emotional" liberals are, then uses Yellow Journalism to back it up.

 

It's so ridiculous its actually impossible to insult him harder than he's already insulted his own intelligence

[calfoxwc]

An editorial is not "yellow jounalism" just because you disagree with it.

And yes, you are correct, for maybe the first time, that it is an editorial, not an article.

But still, I agree with what the author is saying, because unlike emotionally twisted hell bent

liberals...he explains WHY he thinks the way he does The author IS correct. Obamao DOES

target groups and people. By innuendo, he targeted Zimmerman, taking the side of Martin,

because....he "looked like he could have been his son" ...

 

Wait, I have to go find that quote, and add it to the Liberals stupid quotes thread !

[The Cysko Kid]

Yao Ming awaits your quotes. You frequently cite yellow journalism. Sorry, you do. Just thought somebody ought to point that out to you when you post yellow journalism from somewhere like "the blaze" and attempt to pass it off as legitimate, then say how emotional the "libs" are when you just posted some venomous opinion piece about how Obamao wants to put you in a FEMA death camp because you are white, Christian farmers or some equally ridiculous over the top bullshit.

 

I don't know if I should be laughing because of your shtick, which seems kind of like a less funny faux ultra-conservative a la Stephen Colbert or if I should be afraid, very afraid, that you actually buy this fear mongering yellow journalism you repost hook, line and sinker. And ,sadly, you're far from the only one that does.

[calfoxwc]

As usual, we have to give emotional libs actual definitions of words they use. That editorial is an opinion piece, legitimately

backed up, imho, with excellent reasoning.

 

Libs (Heck does it all the freakin time)...use words falsely, in their attempts to manufacture some kind of legitimacy to their constant bitching,

 

and rage about EDITORIALS that they disagree with:

***********************************************

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yellow journalism, or the yellow press, is a type of journalism that presents little or no legitimate well-researched news and instead uses eye-catching headlines to sell more newspapers.[1] Techniques may include exaggerations of news events, scandal-mongering, or sensationalism.[1] By extension, the term yellow journalism is used today as a pejorative to decry any journalism that treats news in an unprofessional or unethical fashion.[2]

Campbell (2001) defines yellow press newspapers as having daily multi-column front-page headlines covering a variety of topics, such as sports and scandal, using bold layouts (with large illustrations and perhaps color), heavy reliance on unnamed sources, and unabashed self-promotion. The term was extensively used to describe certain major New York City newspapers about 1900 as they battled for circulation.

Frank Luther Mott (1941) defines yellow journalism in terms of five characteristics:[3]

scare headlines in huge print, often of minor news

lavish use of pictures, or imaginary drawings

use of faked interviews, misleading headlines, pseudoscience, and a parade of false learning from so-called experts

emphasis on full-color Sunday supplements, usually with comic strips

dramatic sympathy with the "underdog" against the system.

[The Cysko Kid]

Also known as theblaze.com

[calfoxwc]

You do mean msnbc, right?

[The Cysko Kid]

Yeah sure probably that too. We live in the golden age of yellow journalism.