IRS proposes “Tea Party” rules

The effort to silence the "Tea Party" continues.

This time the paralysis will be changed definitions of words and phrases designed to kill off political opposition to the ultra-Obama, ultra-Left/Liberal agenda.

The IRS will be doing the re-education by ways of handling the so-called rules & regulations that govern some tax exempt organizations.

But strangely, some of the old re-named Acorn-type outfits might find a way through with some kind of new classification.

Looks like some people want the Obama Legion Corps to continue with the national reorganization and fundamental transformations happening right before our very eyes.


IRS proposes “Tea Party” rules

Call it the political equivalent of the “Polar Vortex”.

As we enter Day 244 of the Internal Revenue Service scandal of suppressing conservative groups by the unfair application of tax-exempt status rules, there is a development that is chilling the hearts of citizen activists everywhere.

The IRS is planning to codify its tactics into truly heavy-handed regulations. Matt Kibbe of Freedom Works explains:

“While you were all celebrating Thanksgiving with family and friends, the Obama Administration was quietly releasing a new set of draconian IRS regulations that would make it virtually impossible for tea parties that want to participate in the political process to do their business. They’re going after conservative groups, they’re going after libertarian groups, and they’re going after citizen groups that want to organize people based on the values of the constitution; based on the ideas of freedom and have an impact on the political conversation.”

In a nutshell, the agency will be using one of the administration’s favorite tactics: Redefining terms. There would be favorable rulings for groups promoting “social welfare.”

Quotes are from a video in the source story.

More and more it's looking like a desperate end run is going on from the maniacal left.

reply to post by xuenchen


I totally support what is being done and it's hardly a re-definition of the statute. If anything, it's a return to the original intent of the law and the fact that this statute was unilaterally redefined by a past IRS commissioner, without the consent and/or approval of Congress, is what got us in this fix to begin with.

FYI, this is the original statute;

www.irs.gov...

The Statute IRC 501(c)(4) provides for exemption of:
Civic leagues or organizations not organized for profit but operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare.
Local associations of employees, the membership of which is limited to the employees of a designated person or persons in a particular municipality and the net earnings of which are devoted exclusively to charitable, educational, or recreational purposes.
The statutory terms disclose that IRC 501(c)(4) embraces two general classifications:
a. Social welfare organizations, and b. Local associations of employees.

Maybe you could be so kind as to point out just exactly what it is they're changing.

reply to post by xuenchen


Progressives hate anyone not in line with their way of thinking.
They just can't stand it.

Instead of a respectful exchange of ideas, it has become a war.

Yes folks, we are at war.

This is a war of definitions, of terms, of language. Defining "terrorist" takes an entirely new effort now. Because it has to include those who disagree with the current administration.

“I'm sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you're not patriotic. We need to stand up and say we're Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration.”
― Hillary Rodham Clinton

reply to post by xuenchen


They are using rules, and regulations to subvert the Constitution. It's as simple as that. Anybody that supports this should be locked up as traitors.

It sedition, plain and simple. And anybody that agrees with this is guilty of it as well.

I believe they intend to make sure no one but their own like minded people can win national election, for sheer lack of ability to organize or be heard.

Hmm.. Well.. We'll see about that. What are the bean counters going to whine about if 10,000 individuals show up at the same place, coincidentally at round the same time...and damned those coincidences here, but they all just happen to be in a mood to protest the same general thing.

what a quinky dink, eh? Go figure.... They're individuals though. Not a "group" so, I guess the IRS can kiss our fuzzy white tails. They control tax law...and really pathetic at that, for the cheap politics of it. They don't have national authority to stifle dissent or enforce free speech edicts from the King.

If they'd like to try? We, the citizens will like to protest..first in hundreds, then thousands...then we'll see where we go from there. I wasn't the only one who joined Occupy for multiple reasons. I'm damn sure not the only one who learned and absorbed like a sponge, how that citizen movement was formed, run and handled at the local level .....to recreate the whole thing again, if need be.

Perhaps need will be. We'll see.

beezzer
reply to post by xuenchen

 

Progressives hate anyone not in line with their way of thinking.
They just can't stand it.

Instead of a respectful exchange of ideas, it has become a war.

Hold on. That could be said by either "side." I would consider myself progressive, but not hating those that disagree with my personal beliefs. I don't always like it, but I usually try to gain something from it and understand that others don't have to agree. If we all agreed about everything I'd say the brainwash worked.

Respect is what is missing and really it's the same entity I hate (IRS), for some of the same reasons. War amongst ourselves over viewpoints is not nearly as productive as finding the common ground to right the ship.

It's sad that the IRS is having to deal with the enormous problem of money flowing into elections. Perhaps that is where we can unite. Take the IRS out of the picture altogether and somehow work on getting caps on election spending. I'd like my officials running for office show me that the know how to budget on their way to election.

Anyhow, don't hate.

reply to post by trumpet


That's the problem though. These rules shut down all the conservative groups like the TEA Party who organized to get their collective voices heard in the election process, but it ignores the largely progressive monstrosities that the unions are. They will still be able to gather money and spend it just like they normally do.

How dare the other side find a voice, eh?

reply to post by trumpet


As a self-proclaimed progressive, are you for all the points that the Constitution stands for?

reply to post by Flatfish


Perhaps you could clarify and give some side by side details and comparisons ?

Not everybody is a mind reader.

People that make a point that involves money really need to be specific.

Simple opinions are OK though.

If the Republicans are mad that the IRS targeted the tea party, wait till they find out about these "churches" that don't pay taxes.

reply to post by ketsuko


It didn't shut down those groups and there were also many liberal groups that also came under the same scrutiny. The unions by and large are on a decline and will not carry as much weight in the future. Politics is ebb and flow. As far as the Tea Party and other right leaning groups not being able to gather monies for elections, look no further than the Kochs and Murdock supplying ample air time for the voices to be heard.

The remarkable thing to me is that we talk about the same problem from both sides and listen to the kooks in leadership on both sides and get the shaft regardless of who is in charge of our one party conglomerate.

rupertg
If the Republicans are mad that the IRS targeted the tea party, wait till they find out about these "churches" that don't pay taxes.

Sounds juicy !!

Got a list ?

reply to post by beezzer


To this degree. They are the laws that we live under. I don't have to agree with all of it and they should be questioned when reasonable. Yourself?

trumpet
reply to post by beezzer

 

To this degree. They are the laws that we live under. I don't have to agree with all of it and they should be questioned when reasonable. Yourself?

Of course.

We question different laws is all.

I guess the difference is that I'm for less restrictions/laws.

reply to post by beezzer


I bet we're not so far off. I'm for less restriction if it is equitable for all. The IRS may change some laws, but the smarts/skunks on both ends of our political spectrum will find new ways to get around them.

Pardon my slow response, I'm working on homework and trying to relax on ATS at the same time.

beezzer

trumpet
reply to post by beezzer

 

To this degree. They are the laws that we live under. I don't have to agree with all of it and they should be questioned when reasonable. Yourself?

Of course.

We question different laws is all.

I guess the difference is that I'm for less restrictions/laws.

do you prefer prosecution?
or re education?

because there is a good reason the tea party is being "given a second chance"
to get their affairs in order, and WHY that includes re iterating WHAT the laws actually are!!!!!

no political "election airing" for these classes of non profit organizations.

making a mistake once deserves a second chance,
doing it again after being spelt out the rules,
well at that point i say prosecute!!!!

ps Hi Buddy

xploder

'The tea party is being given a second chance' ?

REALLY ?

REALLY ?

Thought I lived in a country where its very own government doesn't target people for their beliefs.

Guess not.

Sieg Heil.

May the sun never fade from the glorious fourth Reich.

Heil Government!

Heil the IRS!

Hell de furhrer!

reply to post by XPLodER


S'up my friend.

The truth is in the tale. The IRS is going after folks who disagree with the administration.

From audits to denials. The media won't report it.

Fear rules America now.

I'd just like to insert one li'l reminder: It was the Bush administration that put this in place.

The Tea Party is upsetting the status quo. That means both sides of the political game are attacking.