We, as the voting public, have demands as well, and we put them in video form, so our friends in the Entertainment Community can understand.
Michael Barone writes: The knee jerk response of many liberals to political attacks seems to be to suppress such speech. Examples abound. Michigan Rep. Gary Peters, running for the Senate, threatens the broadcast licenses of stations that run adscriticizing him. Over at salon.com Fred Jerome imagines what it would be like to nationalize — have the government take over — Fox News. And of course evidence continues to accumulate that high Internal Revenue Service officials denied approval to conservative groups in order to suppress political speech.
Then there’s the Federal Communications Commission‘s “Multi-Market Study of Critical Information Needs”–put on hold Friday. The FCC was going to query TV station and newspaper
writers about their “coverage choices.” As my Washington Examiner colleague Byron York explains, this “study” was the project of Democratic FCC Commissioner Mignon Clyburn, daughter of Rep. James Clyburn, and it was scheduled to be rolled out first in Columbia, S.C. — which just happens to be the Clyburns’ hometown. Read the rest of this entry »
“There is nothing more threatening to the liberal media in general, and Hillary Clinton in particular, than a conservative woman. So of course there’s a double standard.”
“And conservative women from Sarah Palin to Michele Bachmann to Carly Fiorina are long used to this. It will not stop me. It will not scare me and maybe, the ladies of ‘The View,’ if I come back on again, let’s see if they have the guts to say that to my face.”
Read more: dailycaller
St. Louis Police get Standing Ovation at St. Patrick’s Day Parade
Liberal college student caught in hate crime hoax
“Can you name ONE of the conservative groups that were “improperly targeted” which ACTUALLY fits the description for 501(C)4 status?”
Observers like andrewkletzien are in the unfortunate position of defending the IRS. Pretending the IRS was acting correctly and honorably. Why?
Because they’re abusing power in ways they approve of, against groups they disapprove of.
Convenient, isn’t it?
For the uninitiated, what’s being suggesting is this:
The IRS was simply doing its job. Because these Conservative groups, boy, their motives are questionable. Or outright illegitimate. Better set them aside for special scrutiny. Put the screws to them. They’re gaming the system. Better flag them. Surely they’re up to something sinister.
The sheer stupidity of this is extremely revealing. Note: for 27 months, leading up to the 1012 election, all of the Conservative and Tea Party groups were blocked from approval. Not just some of them. Or half of them. Or most of them. All of them.
But hey, it could be just a coincidence. Due diligence, on the part of IRS. Hey, they’re just doing their job, right? Up until recently, the taxpaying American public didn’t fully understand what the IRS’s real job is. The folks at the IRS had no illusions, they understood. And they carried out their mission. Being called upon to explain it to Congress–who they hold in contempt—is a mere inconvenience, not worthy of picking out matching socks, much less preparing an honest presentation. This is business as usual. They still have bonus checks they probably haven’t cashed. This isn’t grounds for punishment, they’re rewarded for this. For doing their real job.
For the record, concerned citizens on any side of the ideological spectrum, if they’re honest, are equally concerned, if any group is targeted and harassed for political reasons. Conservatives would object–perhaps not as vocally, but they’d recognize the implications, and voice objections– if Liberal and Progressive groups were harassed and denied, while Conservative applications were mysteriously approved. It’s chilling. It’s a texbook intimidation tactic. More characteristic of second-rate tin-horn Military Dictatorships, not Constitutional Democratic Republics.
The overwhelming majority of fair-minded Liberals are alarmed by the pattern of harassment against Conservative groups, and object vigorously in their defense. andrewkletzien is not among them, apparently.
If a Republican were in the White House, and the IRS was targeting and harassing Liberal groups, they’d be screaming bloody murder. Charging that it’s unfair, calling it what it is: an Enemies List.
And they’d be right.
Why the double standard?
Applicants with Liberal or Progressive or green-sounding names were passed through, given approval. According to the current ruling class, progressive-sounding applicants are the “good guys”, with pure motives. And given less scrutiny.
As the investigation unfolds, I wouldn’t be surprised if Progressive applicants weren’t just approved, but given privileged status. Herded into the fast-lane on the seal-of-approval conveyor belt, given a merit badge, and an ice cream cone.
The best example of this double standard: in one case, a Conservative group’s application got the customary pointless runaround, endless delays, and failed to get approval. Its founder got tired of waiting. Then reapplied, after adopting an intentionally-misleading, but more favorable-sounding name “Greenhouse”. Viola! — quick approval. The group’s politics were unchanged. Only the name.
The IRS’s dishonesty is self-evident. The pattern of abuse is transparent.
No group should be targeted based on politics, obviously, it’s wrong either way. The process has to be neutral. Otherwise the IRS is breaking the law, abusing its power, and violating the rights of citizens. Period.
But—if you can be seduced into directly or indirectly supporting of that kind of systematic abuse, because it suits your political agenda—well, good luck when you get screwed.
The irony is: in America, even your opponents would come to your defense, object to the abuse, and support your equal rights. Which is more than can be said andrewkletzien.
Statists love big powerful government agencies. Especially when they abuse power and wield authority in ways that’s favorable for them, but
criminally abusive inconvenient for their enemies. But when it goes the other way, and their rights are abused? If their special political causes are targeted for harassment, oh, that’s a different story. Now they’re victims.
Next to being a proud supporter of a Federal Agency with the power to harass and abuse political enemies, the most precious status symbol a big-government advocate can have is being an oppressed victim.