Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
It seems that neither side of this "controversy" understands the REAL situation.
.......(wall of babbling text).....
Oh right,
the GOP trying to be relevant.
IRS chief: Inappropriate screening was broad
Looks like the IRS also targeted Zionists, Progressives, Occupy folks, not just Tea Partiers.
Of course it wasn't!IRS chief: Inappropriate screening was broad
Looks like the IRS also targeted Zionists, Progressives, Occupy folks, not just Tea Partiers.
Correct.
And none of it was politically motivated.
IRS chief: Inappropriate screening was broad
Looks like the IRS also targeted Zionists, Progressives, Occupy folks, not just Tea Partiers.
Yes, I've only made 3 threads concerning the FBI labeling the "End the Federal Reserve Movement" aka the "Occupy Wall Street" movement as terrorists.
The better question is:
Why is the IRS targeting anyone at all?
Now, how many Zionist, Occupy or other groups have come forward with stories about how they were targeted, given extensive questionnaires, etc? None.
This also looks like a cover up.
It seems that neither side of this "controversy" understands the REAL situation.
.......(wall of babbling text).....
Oh right,
the GOP trying to be relevant.
It seems that neither you, nor either side understands the "controversy."
The problem is that the IRS is targeting ANYONE at all, regardless of party.
All of which is a borderline atrocity.
But the Obiedoodle fluffer zombies don't give a shit.
Now, how many Zionist, Occupy or other groups have come forward with stories about how they were targeted, given extensive questionnaires, etc? None.
This also looks like a cover up.
Now, how many Zionist, Occupy or other groups have come forward with stories about how they were targeted, given extensive questionnaires, etc? None.
This also looks like a cover up.
So..... if a "targeted" group doesn't "come forward" with a story about it (that you know about) -- it didn't happen.
Good to know how things work on your planet -- unless 'everybody knows', it's not valid.
Now, how many Zionist, Occupy or other groups have come forward with stories about how they were targeted, given extensive questionnaires, etc? None.
This also looks like a cover up.
So..... if a "targeted" group doesn't "come forward" with a story about it (that you know about) -- it didn't happen.
Good to know how things work on your planet -- unless 'everybody knows', it's not valid.
Don't you think it's odd that there were groups that were supposedly targeted and no one from any of those groups has come forward to date to make the same complaints?
Yes, I've only made 3 threads concerning the FBI labeling the "End the Federal Reserve Movement" aka the "Occupy Wall Street" movement as terrorists.
The better question is:
Why is the IRS targeting anyone at all?
Because the law requires they make a determination about whether or not a group filing for 501(g)(3) status is primarily engaged in political speech.
One may well ask: "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all."
Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality. It gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of inferiority. Segregation, to use the terminology of the Jewish philosopher Martin Buber, substitutes an "I it" relationship for an "I thou" relationship and ends up relegating persons to the status of things. Hence segregation is not only politically, economically and sociologically unsound, it is morally wrong and sinful. Paul Tillich has said that sin is separation. Is not segregation an existential expression of man's tragic separation, his awful estrangement, his terrible sinfulness? Thus it is that I can urge men to obey the 1954 decision of the Supreme Court, for it is morally right; and I can urge them to disobey segregation ordinances, for they are morally wrong.
Let us consider a more concrete example of just and unjust laws. An unjust law is a code that a numerical or power majority group compels a minority group to obey but does not make binding on itself. This is difference made legal. By the same token, a just law is a code that a majority compels a minority to follow and that it is willing to follow itself. This is sameness made legal. Let me give another explanation. A law is unjust if it is inflicted on a minority that, as a result of being denied the right to vote, had no part in enacting or devising the law. Who can say that the legislature of Alabama which set up that state's segregation laws was democratically elected? Throughout Alabama all sorts of devious methods are used to prevent Negroes from becoming registered voters, and there are some counties in which, even though Negroes constitute a majority of the population, not a single Negro is registered. Can any law enacted under such circumstances be considered democratically structured?
Sometimes a law is just on its face and unjust in its application. For instance, I have been arrested on a charge of parading without a permit. Now, there is nothing wrong in having an ordinance which requires a permit for a parade. But such an ordinance becomes unjust when it is used to maintain segregation and to deny citizens the First-Amendment privilege of peaceful assembly and protest.
I hope you are able to see the distinction I am trying to point out. In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist. That would lead to anarchy. One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.
Of course, there is nothing new about this kind of civil disobedience. It was evidenced sublimely in the refusal of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego to obey the laws of Nebuchadnezzar, on the ground that a higher moral law was at stake. It was practiced superbly by the early Christians, who were willing to face hungry lions and the excruciating pain of chopping blocks rather than submit to certain unjust laws of the Roman Empire. To a degree, academic freedom is a reality today because Socrates practiced civil disobedience. In our own nation, the Boston Tea Party represented a massive act of civil disobedience.
We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was "legal" and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was "illegal." It was "illegal" to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler's Germany. Even so, I am sure that, had I lived in Germany at the time, I would have aided and comforted my Jewish brothers. If today I lived in a Communist country where certain principles dear to the Christian faith are suppressed, I would openly advocate disobeying that country's antireligious laws.
The theory of Divine Right asserts that God divides men by certain distinctions, Kings and Subjects, just as God divides the human species into male and female. The King is Sovereign, exercising supreme authority in all spheres of government, in all places subject to his jurisdiction; therefore, under this doctrine, the King is endowed by the Creator with unlimited rights, for all decisions made by the King are in fact the will of God.
The Subject is inferior to the King, and must accept any edict from the King without question. The Subject only has those rights which the King permits. Those rights may be revoked, denied or disparaged at any time. Some Subjects will enjoy being in a privileged class (so long as they remain in favor with the King), elevating their status in both government and society, for if God can create the Distinction of King and Subject among Men, then the King, who rules by the will of God, can create the Distinction of Nobility and Commoner among the Subjects.
Central to the doctrine of Divine Right, was that no Subject may question the King, for questioning any edict of the King was equivalent to challenging the will of God. The King being Sovereign over his Subjects, both Noble and Common, can only be judged by God, or another King, as other Kings rule by the will of God. Thus the Subjects have no power, on heaven or earth, to depose of their King.
However, during the middle of the 17th Century, a man named John Milton came to challenge the legitimacy of the Divine Right doctrine itself. Milton argued that the King's authority was derived from the people, and thus the King's power is only granted to him by Popular Sovereignty. Most important is that the people derive this sovereignty from God, and that these Sovereigns have both the right and the obligation to overthrow a tyrannical King. Here the roles of King and Subject are reversed, the Subjects are Sovereign over the King; the King only rules as a privilege extended to him by the people, a privilege that can be revoked, denied or disparaged at any time. Overall, the King is a Servant to the Public, hence the term public servant.
Now we will return to Sir Robert's Patriarcha, and cast aside the involvement of religion (God) in doctrine of Divine Right. When we have removed religion, we are left with the raw embodiment of Statism, which decrees that the State is Sovereign over the people, and that the people exist at the mercy and grace of the State, thus these people are Subjects, and their rulers are Kings.
People living under this doctrine, willingly or unwillingly, possess no rights, for the State is sovereign over all things, and thus the State has unlimited rights, infinite in its power. The State will usually delegate most of its powers to the Subjects, as it would be both inconvenient and impractical to administer the entirety of its infinite power in finite Time. Thus the State must prioritize which powers it exercises, because it only has limited Time and resources to execute its authority.
The first among these priorities will be to exercise the powers required to preserve its authority. Any time the Subjects of the State use their delegated privileges to challenge the State, the State will hastily disparage that privilege among those who are resisting them, and sometimes deny the privilege completely. In times of great peril to the Kings who administer the State, they will revoke the privilege entirely among all their Subjects. Once revoked, it will never be regained by the Subjects; the State does not forgive, it does not forget, it will never relinquish this privilege again.
In order to make sure that the people no longer continue to exercise that privilege, it will perpetually police its Subjects, for the failure to police the Subjects will result in a challenge to the authority of the State, which must not be questioned. Herein is the guiding principle behind the Police State. A government founded on the doctrine of Statism cannot guarantee its infinite sovereignty by doctrine alone, it must rely upon a compliant police or military, a Privileged class of Subjects, granted innumerable benefits and privileges that no ordinary Subject may possess (in short, a Nobility).
Recalling that the State must prioritize which powers to invoke, because the State is limited by Time, we must pay heed to the innovations of modern technology. Technology is a neutral entity; it can be used for both good and ill. The most important feature of technology, is that it allows a person or party (government) to use its Time more efficiently, allowing the person or party to accomplish more tasks in a given measure of time than previously before. As a consequence, as technology improves, the State is able to exercise additional powers, because it can use its Time more efficiently, and thus can Police its citizens even more than ever before, further reducing any perceived threats. Remember, that any government operating under the Doctrine of Statism only delegates those privileges to its Subjects that it cannot reasonable exercise in respect to its other priorities. However, once the Government has the ability to Police that right without diminishing other priorities, it will immediately revoke that privilege among its Subjects and reserve that right exclusively to itself.
So if we had to define Statism in a nutshell, it would be this: All rights are reserved to the State, and people within the State are Subjects to its Supreme Sovereignty, thus any rights that the Subjects exercise are but mere privileges, either granted by the State directly, or graced upon the Subjects by silent acquiescence. The State, being the Supreme Sovereign, may deny, disparage or revoke those privileges among any or all of its Subjects, for any or no cause. Therefore, the Subjects have no rights, but legal privileges only.
However, this system of thought is founded upon a series of contradictory axioms, and we will explore these contradictions in the essays to follow! One of the largest contradictions in Statist philosophy is that Statists require a compliant police or military force (notice that compliant was put in bold print earlier). If the Kings must rely upon the Consent of individual Subjects in order to enforce their Will, then the Kings are not truly sovereign, they must derive their power, as a privilege, from the rights of some other Sovereign entity (or entities) who Consented to delegate those privileges to the Kings. And if this Sovereign Entity decides that the Kings have become tyrannical, they may withdraw their Consent by ceasing to enforce its laws, in other words, make the edicts of the King void, without force, null.
Now, how many Zionist, Occupy or other groups have come forward with stories about how they were targeted, given extensive questionnaires, etc? None.
This also looks like a cover up.
So..... if a "targeted" group doesn't "come forward" with a story about it (that you know about) -- it didn't happen.
Good to know how things work on your planet -- unless 'everybody knows', it's not valid.
Don't you think it's odd that there were groups that were supposedly targeted and no one from any of those groups has come forward to date to make the same complaints?
So..... if a "targeted" group doesn't "come forward" with a story about it (that you know about) -- it didn't happen.
Good to know how things work on your planet -- unless 'everybody knows', it's not valid.
Don't you think it's odd that there were groups that were supposedly targeted and no one from any of those groups has come forward to date to make the same complaints?
"No one" has huh? You can prove this negative then?
Could it be because the issue was framed by Issa disingenuously as a conservative witch hunt? Ya think??
And if it's literally true that "nobody" is bringing this up-- where did this thread come from?
>> By ALAN FRAM
Associated Press
WASHINGTON
The Internal Revenue Service's screening of groups seeking tax-exempt status was broader and lasted longer than has been previously disclosed, the new head of the agency acknowledged Monday. Terms including "Israel," `'Progressive" and "Occupy" were used by agency workers to help pick groups for closer examination, according to an internal IRS document obtained by The Associated Press.
... Democrats on the House Ways and Means Committee released one of the lists, dated November 2010, that the IRS has provided to congressional investigators. That 16-page document shows that the terms "Progressive" and "Tea Party" were both on that list, as well as "Medical Marijuana" and "Healthcare legislation."<< (Seattle Times)
More: These Liberal Buzzwords 'Targeted' by IRS Debunk the Conservative Conspiracy
