Author Topic: Silencing the Opposition  (Read 292 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online mystery-ak

  • Owner
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 257,479
Silencing the Opposition
« on: February 01, 2014, 12:29:06 PM »
http://www.americanthinker.com/printpage/?url=http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/02/silencing_the_opposition.html

February 1, 2014
Silencing the Opposition
Edward H. Stewart, Jr.

On Wednesday, Mitch McConnell told Fox News' Megyn Kelly that the Obama administration is "initiating a new rule through the Treasury Department in the IRS to quiet the voices of outside groups." According to McConnell, the new rule would redefine what groups like the Tea Party could advocate, during a political campaign "to silence the voices of their critics going into this important fall election by using the Treasury Department regulations."

This Obama strategy apparently grew out of one of the many lies both IRS witnesses and Democratic members of the Congressional Oversight Committee used to explain away delays in granting conservative groups 501 (c) (4) status. The logjam, the narrative ran, was not politically motivated but the result of the ambiguous nature of the requirements for tax exempt status. As described in the Federal Register for November 29, 2013, the purpose of the new rule is to clarify the standards, thus enabling the IRS to grant 501 (c) (4) status more rapidly and fairly. In typical Obama fashion, that is a lie.

Quote
These proposed regulations draw from Federal Election Commission rules in defining "expressly advocate," but expand the concept to include communications expressing a view on the selection, nomination, or appointment of individuals, or on the election or defeat of one or more candidates or of candidates of a political party.

The definition of advocacy is extremely broad, in the same spirit as the position taken by the administration in Citizens United oral argument. It threatens the wholesale suppression of political speech because it targets literally all forms of communication. (See my AT article on this issue and the connection between Citizens United and the IRS scandal here)

Quote
These proposed regulations make clear that all communications -- including written, printed, electronic (including Internet), video, and oral communications -- that express a view, whether for or against, on a clearly identified candidate (or on candidates of a political party) would constitute candidate-related political activity.

Even more ominous is the way in which a candidate is identified .

Quote
A candidate can be "clearly identified" in a communication by name, photograph, or reference (such as "the incumbent" or a reference to a particular issue or characteristic distinguishing the candidate from others).

McConnell's got it right. In the hands of a criminally partisan IRS "reference to a particular issue . . . distinguishing the candidate from others" is not only permission to, but an instruction to harass and deny 501 (c) (4) status to any group that opposes ObamaCare, amnesty, same-sex marriage, or any other issue dear to the president's heart. Far from creating a bright-line distinction, "distinguishing the candidate from others" sets no boundaries at all, giving one of Washington's most politicized, corrupt, and powerful agencies unfettered discretion to reward Obama's friends and punish his enemies.

The real purpose of the rule change is exactly the opposite, to silence opposition to candidates, appointees, or specific partisan issues that can be identified with either a candidate or a political party. Section 1,2,b Express Advocacy Communications, reveals the secret.

Support the USO

Offline olde north church

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 5,136
Re: Silencing the Opposition
« Reply #1 on: February 01, 2014, 03:06:58 PM »
The White Rose Society would be quite an excellent of study.  They found ways around what was going around.  They perished in the end but well they did.
Why?  Well, because I'm a bastard, that's why.

Online truth_seeker

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 19,426
  • Common Sense Results Oriented Conservative Veteran
    • The place where argument addicts can go
Re: Silencing the Opposition
« Reply #2 on: February 01, 2014, 03:29:47 PM »
How about forgetting about tax--exempt status and getting on with the mission?

It is that important.
"God must love the common man, he made so many of them.�  Abe Lincoln

Offline Oceander

  • Technical
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 47,421
  • Chief Dork
Re: Silencing the Opposition
« Reply #3 on: February 01, 2014, 06:13:40 PM »
How about forgetting about tax--exempt status and getting on with the mission?

It is that important.

I couldn't agree more.  If you let the Devil pay the piper, then the Devil gets to call the tune.  Tax-exempt status is letting the Devil - the government - pay the piper, so those who seek it shouldn't be so surprised when government seeks to call the tune.

Similarly for contributors:  if you let the status of an organization as tax-exempt or not govern your giving, then you're also letting the Devil call the tune because you've let him pay the piper.

Online truth_seeker

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 19,426
  • Common Sense Results Oriented Conservative Veteran
    • The place where argument addicts can go
Re: Silencing the Opposition
« Reply #4 on: February 01, 2014, 08:08:48 PM »
I couldn't agree more.  If you let the Devil pay the piper, then the Devil gets to call the tune.  Tax-exempt status is letting the Devil - the government - pay the piper, so those who seek it shouldn't be so surprised when government seeks to call the tune.

Similarly for contributors:  if you let the status of an organization as tax-exempt or not govern your giving, then you're also letting the Devil call the tune because you've let him pay the piper.
Unlike many who comment, I actually served once as Treasurer for a 501 c. 3. PAC.

Our tax-exempt status was granted by the Secretary of State for my state, not by the federal govt.

Some cite the dormancy of the TPs in 2010 upon lack of approved for tax-exempt. I'm skeptical that fully explains it, because right now there appears to be low level only of activity.

Regardless of the technicalities, they better get going with more than just talk, because it is now Feb. and primaries, then the general come very soon.
"God must love the common man, he made so many of them.�  Abe Lincoln

Offline DCPatriot

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 32,825
Re: Silencing the Opposition
« Reply #5 on: February 01, 2014, 08:15:34 PM »
Unlike many who comment, I actually served once as Treasurer for a 501 c. 3. PAC.

Our tax-exempt status was granted by the Secretary of State for my state, not by the federal govt.

Some cite the dormancy of the TPs in 2010 upon lack of approved for tax-exempt. I'm skeptical that fully explains it, because right now there appears to be low level only of activity.

Regardless of the technicalities, they better get going with more than just talk, because it is now Feb. and primaries, then the general come very soon.

It doesn't matter a whit.  The TP voter is "THE" Crouching Tiger...and it's ready to show up this November.

The only thing that can beat them is if they cheat...and with electronically programmed machines......I dunno.  I don't trust them.

A 3rd suicide this week of a member of the Federal Reserve....or people closely associated with same.

It seems The Godfather may be making his move.
"It aint what you don't know that kills you.  It's what you know that aint so!" ...Theodore Sturgeon

"Journalism is about covering the news.  With a pillow.  Until it stops moving."    - Iowahawk

Offline katzenjammer

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2,513
Re: Silencing the Opposition
« Reply #6 on: February 01, 2014, 08:54:04 PM »
It doesn't matter a whit.  The TP voter is "THE" Crouching Tiger...and it's ready to show up this November.

The only thing that can beat them is if they cheat...and with electronically programmed machines......I dunno.  I don't trust them.


A 3rd suicide this week of a member of the Federal Reserve....or people closely associated with same.

It seems The Godfather may be making his move.

Lately I've had some thoughts along these lines.  Firstly, I question how much the impact of what we now call the "IRS scandal" really was.  Don't get me wrong, I'm not condoning what the IRS did, not at all.  But from my personal involvement with a few TP groups, I never saw the tax exempt status as an issue at all on the ground.  For myself, and everyone else that I know, being able to get credit for a portion of what we kicked in to support a rally or other activity was never a question.  If I needed to throw in a couple of hundred to cover part of the PA or other rental expenses, I just wrote the check, never thought for a moment about whether or not I could get a deduction for a portion of it.  As I said, no one else I know ever did either.  And to be honest, I have not seen any decrease in activities during that time period up through now either.  In fact I see that there are more and more meetings and activities all the time (of course, this is just my little view into the world, it could be drastically different elsewhere).

I have been wondering if the whole "IRS scandal" was allowed to percolate out on purpose -- knowing full well that the GOP and conservatives would be all over it jumping up and down (rightly so as I mentioned above), and thus create a part of the narrative that explains the 2012 result.  (I have been in the camp since that day that believes it was stolen from Romney.  Based on what I was seeing myself and from others I know in so called battleground states, all of the momentum and activity was for Romney -- record crowds all over, people lining up for blocks and miles down the road to get close enough to hear the rally on a PA.  The other side's rallies were basically empty absent the bussed in "supporters."  I believe that the phony polls were also used to color the narrative for a successful re-election.  And the "IRS scandal" was another part used to describe what made no sense.)

I look at it like this: 2010 showed how pissed off the country was based on the first 2 years, and how this agenda was being rejected outright.  Does anyone think that:

A.  Things got so much better since then that everyone was calmed down??  I don't think so, everyone turning out in 2010 just saw more and more to motivate them to turn out in 2012.

B.  The folks that turned out in 2010 just decided to stay home because they just couldn't get them selves motivated to vote for that sharp successful business man and wonderful family man, because he was a Mormon??  because of his unfortunate mistake in MA??  Again, I don't think so.  Even though Romney-Ryan was not a "first choice" for many, myself included, comparing them to what we had for 4 years was like comparing fast food to a fine dining experience, simply no comparison.  I submit that to a person, anyone that turned out in 2010 to give the GOP the House in a very overwhelming manner, and put more GOP candidates in place across the country at the state and local levels, certainly showed up in 2012.  And more joined them.

The support that Romney-Ryan had on the ground in the last few weeks in those states that they "lost" on election day just can't be explained away to me.

You bring up the electronic voting machines, I agree, just another way to make the theft of an election all the more easy.

So, of course you need some cover stories to explain it away....  and I've wondered lately if the whole "IRS scandal" was really a tempest in a teapot of sorts, in its actual, real impact on 2012.  I just don't know.  But I will never be convinced that Romney "lost" the election, never.
« Last Edit: February 01, 2014, 09:06:38 PM by katzenjammer »


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf