Dem Congressman takes apart tea party whiner

[JoeB131]

These people backing this government and the Irs thinks they will be shielded from this type of abuse

well, this is just the stepping stone for them....you will be next...so cheer them on like good little sheep/subjects

No, we just can't get worked up when the IRS scrutinizes your claim to be a "Social Welfare" agency when you are doing politics.

Frankly, the IRS is doing exactly what it is supposed to do, scrutinize dubious claims in tax filings.

 

[natstew]

Quote from Emilyngheim,
" I do believe that the judges' ruling in the contested case of Florida votes for Bush vs. Gore was a conflict of interest.
clearly the court shoud not have been skewed toward Republican, but judges should have removed themselves if there was political bias or appearance of it.
so that technically should be thrown out and redone, just because of conflicts of interest
I think they should have recounted to assure there was no question."

Have you really thought about what you posted here? That makes no sense at all!
For starters all Supremes are either Democrat or Republican, so what are you going to do, remove all of the Judges from the vote?

And, the U.S. Supreme Court didn't pick George Bush, they upheld the Constitution of the State of Florida which gives the Florida Secretary Of State authority to administer the Florida Election Laws as written in the Florida Constitution. The whole debacle was a failed attempt by the Democrat Party to steal the Presidency, and very shameful of them. You can't be a Democrat and have any moral integrity in your Character.

 

[natstew]

These people backing this government and the Irs thinks they will be shielded from this type of abuse

well, this is just the stepping stone for them....you will be next...so cheer them on like good little sheep/subjects

No, we just can't get worked up when the IRS scrutinizes your claim to be a "Social Welfare" agency when you are doing politics.

Frankly, the IRS is doing exactly what it is supposed to do, scrutinize dubious claims in tax filings.

Frankly Joe, you are not being honest here. Dubious claims? They weren't even investigated, they were 'sat on' so the organizations were shut down.
You seem to ignore all the Democrat organizations that were okayed without an investigation. You really are as corrupt as your Supreme Leader'.

 

[Dot Com]

These people backing this government and the Irs thinks they will be shielded from this type of abuse

well, this is just the stepping stone for them....you will be next...so cheer them on like good little sheep/subjects

No, we just can't get worked up when the IRS scrutinizes your claim to be a "Social Welfare" agency when you are doing politics.

Frankly, the IRS is doing exactly what it is supposed to do, scrutinize dubious claims in tax filings.

yep, that brazen rw Englebrecht broad is as partisan a hack as they come. She doesn't want poor people voting.

 

[natstew]

As for OSHA, it became a political tool for the Democrats years ago. In the seventies it was being used to shut down non-union construction projects. I saw it first hand on Union Jobs and non-Union jobs. It was common knowledge on the jobs. Union projects always got enough notice to prepare for the visit and non-Union companies received no notice. I saw non-Union sites shut down over minor discrepancies and Union sites get a warning and not a penalty for the same infraction.

In view of all the corruption in the Democrat machine it's amazing that a Republican gets elected to any Federal Office, that's the telling thing. Even with all the Democrat fraud and corruption enough of the American people still see the truth to elect some Republicans.

You can't have any moral integrity in your Character and be a Democrat.

 

[JohnL.Burke]

???

I cited other cases of voter fraud
* Allan West in Florida
* ACORN including a women convicted of multiple counts

this is adding information that was requested.

LOL! I love your persistence! It's fun to watch people emotionally unraveling when you have the audacity to ask serious questions and state facts as opposed to partisan propaganda. Good for you! Left or right, I don't care, drive 'em all nuts! It's a public service!

Because you went nuts years ago, and are totally enjoying it, no doubt.

You flirt weird.

 

[Dot Com]

Glad that rw repub dog & pony show is over. It was retch worthy

 

[emilynghiem]

Hi Natstew: so to avoid partisan bias, why not require federal officials to make all decisions by consensus, unless people consent to majority rule. in the case of contested elections of Bush and now Obama, no, people did NOT consent to decision made by majority but were convinced of fraud in both cases. neither president represented the entire nation but passed policies that excluded members of the opposing party. also with ACA people did NOT agree to the policy even with majority rule; based on partisan issues that were never resolved with the bill although these were clearly contested, before and after and still currently. so there should be a consensus to avoid conflict of interest in pushing partisan agenda through federal govt which is NOT equal protection or representation. if you consider both parties to represent political beliefs as I do, then imposing one against the other is clearly unconstitutional as discrimination by religion or creed. I do call this unconstitutional. I believe in consensus on policy to avoid all conflicts of interest, political religious financial or otherwise. I don't see how else to guarantee equal protection and representation without resolving all objections and grievances so people feel that the laws represent them and they consent to them as a contract. otherwise we keep having the political bullying and deadlocks from trying to bypass democratic due process and force things by coercion. that undermines consent of the governed and the entire democratic process of representation and checks and balances against abuse of political power to favor private interests or biases.

example of a well written law passed through Congress by consensus:
code of ethics for govt service, posted at http://www.ethics-commission

so if all policies had to be this well written where it is unanimous, there is clearly
no partisan abuse of majority rule to impose policies that contain unresolved conflict or bias.

Yes, to answer your question, i do think this is possible and legally necessary to use the standard of consensus to enforce Constitutional equal inclusion, representation and protection of political and religious beliefs. if there is a consensus, neither party can say the other is pushing onesided agenda. Only if they are ambivalent to a policy, and don't care either way if majority rule votes one way or another, that's not religiously imposing. but on gay marriage, health care and abortion, and other such issues, majority rule is not agreed upon if the decision goes against their beliefs. so we need consensus or separation, which I recommend managing by party. If both parties managed their own programs and policies funded by their own members, maybe we could reserve the federal govt for just the public policies that all people agree with across the board. and keep the rest of the religion and politics local to each party to work things out and fund separately instead of competing to oust the other. we can't keep paying for that.

Quote from Emilyngheim,
" I do believe that the judges' ruling in the contested case of Florida votes for Bush vs. Gore was a conflict of interest.
clearly the court shoud not have been skewed toward Republican, but judges should have removed themselves if there was political bias or appearance of it.
so that technically should be thrown out and redone, just because of conflicts of interest
I think they should have recounted to assure there was no question."

Have you really thought about what you posted here? That makes no sense at all!
For starters all Supremes are either Democrat or Republican, so what are you going to do, remove all of the Judges from the vote?

And, the U.S. Supreme Court didn't pick George Bush, they upheld the Constitution of the State of Florida which gives the Florida Secretary Of State authority to administer the Florida Election Laws as written in the Florida Constitution. The whole debacle was a failed attempt by the Democrat Party to steal the Presidency, and very shameful of them. You can't be a Democrat and have any moral integrity in your Character.

 

[emilynghiem]

RESPONSE FROM CHRIS X:

I didn't say that, I said that was not the main reason she was testifying. She was testifying because of multiple audits, by multiple governmental groups that targeted her... You're right, in 2012 it was OSHA that fined her $20,000.00 after finding nothing serious or significant without her or husband being present. This was after she was audited by the IRS in 2011, audited by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms in 2012 & 2013. How convenient huh?

"Beginning in 2010, the FBI contacted my nonprofit organization on six separate
occasions, wanting to cull through membership manifests in conjunction with
domestic terrorism cases. They eventually dropped all matters and have now
redacted nearly all my files."

http://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Engelbrecht.pdf

Watch her testimony here on YouTube.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxcMKtsm5BU]Catherine Engelbrecht's Testimony at House of Representatives Hearing on IRS Targeting - YouTube[/ame]

If those who disagree this isn't the goverment targeting of an individual/group... Then they won't mind being visited by the IRS, OSHA, and BATF for no particular reason.

If I misspoke, I apologize. Don't quote me, quote her when she testified. Information is provided in the above links.

Chris X

ChrisXradio: (Weeknights 8-10pm CST on 1070-AM KNTH)

=====================

Dear ChrisX:
I posted the rebuttal as you stated regarding Engelbrecht

1. you said she did not complain about OSHA
but I did find that mentioned in the testimony.
Were you talking about a different statement she made,
or did you only take an excerpt and leave out that part?

2. you said she stated under oath that the IRS
found nothing wrong but fined her anyway

I did not find this statement in the sworn testimony
or in the court documents online at truethevote.org

Now the people online are criticizing me
for citing you and other sources as rightwing biased
and not telling all the information accurately.

You said it was in her sworn testimony
or else she would be charged with perjury.

Where is this statement located?
Which testimony were you referring to?

Please reply. If it turns out it is not in her sworn
testimony before Congress, I will ask for a public
correction by you, as well as recommendation
to Allan West to come visit and investigate
Freedmen's Town as the most blatantly egregious abuses
of political, govt, corporate and media influence
by Democrat party leaders to cover up political fraud and
destruction at the expense of taxpayers and national history.

It will be sorely embarrassing to me if Engelbrecht's OSHA
fines were based on substantiated violations, and there were no fines
by the IRS as you and others reported or repeated,
and yet you used your media time to report that as news.
But will not so much as mention Freedmen's Town to Allan West
or others who could pursue it since they do not have a conflict of interest in
investigating and exposing it. If so, shame on you for turning a blind eye
to a more serious problem while making a big issue of something that isn't.

I guess if people have money to sue, they count as important.
And people who can't afford big lawyers like Engelbrecht
are out of luck and don't deserve equal protection of the laws
and coverage in the media.

Please send corrections if it is true
that Engelbrecht was a. fined by the IRS
without any wrongdoing found (all I could
find was that this cost her a lot of money, thousands
of dollars including lost work time and legal work)
and b. that she stated this in her sworn
testimony which I could not find either.

Thank you and I hope we
correct this matter and
others more pressing.

==========

Dear Herman Cain:
Thank you for reporting on the Engelbrecht case.

I cited your statement she was fined 20K by IRS with no wrongdoing found. I posted this on an online forum at usmessageboard.com

Can you please confirm where this was stated in sworn testimony before Congress?

I also invite you and Allan West to please visit Freedmen's Town In Houston to help Gladys House a Black Republican to redress grievances and corruption by Democrats who destroyed this national historic landmark of Freed Slave churches, African American Civil Rights and military history.

Millions of tax dollars were abused by Democrats and their corporate interests to destroy national Black history. Will you please contact Gladys House to tour this site of political corruption and abuse by Democrats at taxpayers expense. We would like to pursue restitution in order to buy the remaining land as a campus for sustainable business development.

Thank you,
Emily Nghiem
Freedmen's Town Historic Churches and Vet Housing

Dear Paperview:
I apologize also if I missquoted ChrisX. see his statement above.

the quote that said she was fined by the IRS with no wrongdoing found
came from HERMAN CAIN on his radio show website.

So I wrote him an email asking to clarify this since he interviewed her
and may have more information.

If Cain got it wrong, I will ask for a public correction and for him
to interview and expose real political fraud in Freedmen's Town,
unless he also only caters to wealthy conservatives like Engelbrecht who can afford to sue
and ignore the plight of poor black churches destroyed under Democrat political
corruption because they can't find legal help like Engelbrecht could.

Allan West and Chris X did post the video from the poor black community
in Chicago criticizing Obama. Most people won't touch that.

If they make a big deal of Engelbrecht, surely they should expose
worse cases of political fraud by Democrats.

I will keep pushing to see if Herman Cain clarifies that
statement off his website, or ask for a public apology
why he pushed that case and did nothing to expose Freedmen's Town.

After all, it is more blatant and ongoing, and national history has been destroyed
using taxpayers money misdirected by Democrats to profit their developer friends.

Chris X made his correction and backed off.
Let's see if Cain even responds to my inquiry
where did he get that statement out of her testimony.

Thanks for pointing this out.
I hope in turn I can help by bringing out more
established cases of Democrat fraud to answer
your questions as well. all this needs to come out anyway,
from both parties if taxpayers are ever going to receive
restitution for damages and debts racked up by both at public expense.

Yours truly,
Emily

 

[Ellasophia]

It's just too easy. No credit to the dems on this one. If you can't make a fool out of a bagger, you need to quit.

 

[Dot Com]

It's just too easy. No credit to the dems on this one. If you can't make a fool out of a bagger, you need to quit.

well, the Repub chairman was tossing out softball /leading questions to the voter suppressionist witnesses.

 

[JohnL.Burke]

And all the democrats were tossing out were silly accusations and a few race cards while defending the indefensible use of the IRS as a political weapon.

 

[JoeB131]

And all the democrats were tossing out were silly accusations and a few race cards while defending the indefensible use of the IRS as a political weapon.

YOu mean actually enforcing the law is a "political weapon"?

The point was, these Teabagging groups were applying for a tax exemption they weren't entitled to.

They were NOT "Social Welfare Agencies". They were political groups.

Period.

"Waaaa, you are oppressing me by not letting me commit fraud."

And here's the thing. There was a perfectly acceptable tax exemption they were entitled to.

But that one required them to disclose donors, as they should under the law.

 

[JohnL.Burke]

And all the democrats were tossing out were silly accusations and a few race cards while defending the indefensible use of the IRS as a political weapon.

YOu mean actually enforcing the law is a "political weapon"?

The point was, these Teabagging groups were applying for a tax exemption they weren't entitled to.

They were NOT "Social Welfare Agencies". They were political groups.

Period.

"Waaaa, you are oppressing me by not letting me commit fraud."

And here's the thing. There was a perfectly acceptable tax exemption they were entitled to.

But that one required them to disclose donors, as they should under the law.

They weren't enforcing the law. The IRS admitted that they had made a "mistake". Don't let facts be the enemy of your bias.

 

[emilynghiem]

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND IRS AGREE TO GRANT TRUE THE VOTE?S TAX EXEMPT STATUS IN IRS LAWSUIT

Hi Paperview I think "fighting just to fight" occurred
because the OSHA complaint was NOT the main issue.

Above, the main issue was that the conflicts with IRS delayed the tax exempt status
until THREE YEARS later AFTER THE ELECTION (between the application filed in 2010 and but not granted until 2013).

THAT is the main political issue of "conflict of interest," not the OSHA issue.
[The liberal political organizations that filed were not scrutinized to the same degree,
but some were reported getting approved with a mere PO BOX as an address.]

As for this group being political active or biased
* yes, 501c4 can be politically active as long as 50% isn't
so you can "interpret" that ambiguously as people interpreting Planned Parenthood as a political statement advertising abortions with everything they do, political or not

* and YES if Engelbrecht's group was targeting liberal/Democrat/Minority voting where any cheating would favor Obama, this is just as biased as her group being more targeted as conservative opposition to Obama [while liberal supportive political organizations (even ones with just a PO BOX as the address) were reported as approved without delay]
So if her group's actions delayed voting and political process, that could be "karmic
justice" why her group got delayed "till after the election" which obstructed the process

But Paperview two wrongs don't make a right. If they are both partisan targeting, why not be fair and complain about both, not celebrate one while denouncing the other.

Are you really happy about either side of this targeting going on? I'm not, and I'm a Democrat. I believe in prochoice, and can't stand political bullying that obstructs political freedom and representation.

I will post another reply regarding the specific convictions against the Democrat who voted multiple times, since you asked for a confirmed example of voter fraud that incites this kind of distrust of Democrat politics. It is not unfounded, but if you question people's judgment then I would also question yours in why you insist on calling Engelbrecht a bitch if that doesn't seem founded either except for emotional partisan bias.

So how is your choice of namecalling any better than the bias of the person you criticize?

Are you just fighting for fights sake?

It is a crime for OSHA employees to give unauthorized advance
notice of an inspection. Sometimes a delay between the inspector's arrival at the workplace and the beginning of the inspection allows time for employers to change conditions."

https://www.osha.gov/dte/grant_mater...nspections.pdf

 

[emilynghiem]

Ohioan gets 5-year prison term for illegal voting

Obama Supporting Poll Worker Voted Eight Times in Ohio | FrontPage Magazine

On Melowese Richardson, poll worker,
one article says she was convicted of voting twice in the 2012 election.

The other article explains how additional ballots for other family members
were all mailed from her address in the same handwriting, but not all confirmed.

The other incidents she was convicted of involved her voting on behalf of her
sister, comatose since 2003.

She was convicted on 4 of 8 counts negotiated down.

The other cases of voter fraud like this seem to involve family members or incapacitated persons. They seem to be used to "incite more hype" disproportionate to the cases here.

So I would agree with critics that the hype is politicized and out of proportionate on THESE cases.

But if people didn't do these crimes, then there would be nothing to hype up this way. So it still does NOT diminish voter fraud by blaming others for their reactions, or overreactions.
This is one of the problems fraud causes, by hurting integrity and public faith in the system.
How can we blame outraged citizens for their reactions to crimes that actually occurred.

Same with the hype about profiling or incarcerating the wrong person for a crime committed by a different person. if the guilty person didn't commit the crime in the first place, there wouldn't be a risk of the "wrong person or people" getting blamed as a group. Even where there is overreaction or misplaced blame, the problem still remains that the crime should not have been committed in the first place. Why don't we focus on that?

 

[Sallow]

Uhmmmm... what post are you responding to? Apology? Are you inhaling too many Walmart vanilla scented incense sticks while listening to a Pink Floyd 8-track?
I know what your point was. I'm just pointing out that your point is factually wrong. Your welcome.

Wasn't factually wrong at all.

Teabaggers tried to cheat the IRS.

The IRS slammed them like a ton of bricks.

Then they said, "Oh, gee, we should have handled you more courteously (but you still aren't getting your tax dodge".)

But not to worry, you guys can STILL claim you lost in 2012 because the IRS kept Teabaggers from bringing the truth to the voters, not because you nominated a weird plutocrat who thought he was wearing magic underwear and disrespected half the electorate.

Thank you for your opinion but I would still rather focus on the facts. The IRS ADMITTED to wrongfully targeting conservative groups. The debate is if rather the IRS targeted conservative groups because the IRS wanted to tap down political opposition or is the IRS just incompetent? Either way, the IRS really needs to be fixed. Unfortunately, as we see on this very thread, the far left has no problem justifying the IRS's corruption or incompetence as long as it is politically convenient.

The IRS isn't incompetent. They've been given a thankless task and got caught in a political whirlwind.

First off Citizen's United opened the floodgates for every plutocrat with an agenda to fund it anonymously. Which is why there was a plethora of newly formed "Freedom" this and "Patriot" that.

Given how vastly under funded and under staffed the IRS is, they went with using that sort of filter to check on these groups.

And Lois Lerner, a Bush appointee, said so. Which of course sparked impeachment minded Republicans to go on yet another witch hunt.

By the way, according to Federal Law, all these groups are illegal.

But of course the law isn't your concern.

It's the impeachment thing that sparks your interest.

 

[Sallow]

And all the democrats were tossing out were silly accusations and a few race cards while defending the indefensible use of the IRS as a political weapon.

YOu mean actually enforcing the law is a "political weapon"?

The point was, these Teabagging groups were applying for a tax exemption they weren't entitled to.

They were NOT "Social Welfare Agencies". They were political groups.

Period.

"Waaaa, you are oppressing me by not letting me commit fraud."

And here's the thing. There was a perfectly acceptable tax exemption they were entitled to.

But that one required them to disclose donors, as they should under the law.

They weren't enforcing the law. The IRS admitted that they had made a "mistake". Don't let facts be the enemy of your bias.

They should be.

 

[Dot Com]

And all the democrats were tossing out were silly accusations and a few race cards while defending the indefensible use of the IRS as a political weapon.

YOu mean actually enforcing the law is a "political weapon"?

The point was, these Teabagging groups were applying for a tax exemption they weren't entitled to.

They were NOT "Social Welfare Agencies". They were political groups.

Period.

"Waaaa, you are oppressing me by not letting me commit fraud."

And here's the thing. There was a perfectly acceptable tax exemption they were entitled to.

But that one required them to disclose donors, as they should under the law.

^ that

The IRS isn't incompetent. They've been given a thankless task and got caught in a political whirlwind.

First off Citizen's United opened the floodgates for every plutocrat with an agenda to fund it anonymously. Which is why there was a plethora of newly formed "Freedom" this and "Patriot" that.

Given how vastly under funded and under staffed the IRS is, they went with using that sort of filter to check on these groups.

And Lois Lerner, a Bush appointee, said so. Which of course sparked impeachment minded Republicans to go on yet another witch hunt.

By the way, according to Federal Law, all these groups are illegal.

But of course the law isn't your concern.

It's the impeachment thing that sparks your interest.

and ^ that

 

[JohnL.Burke]

YOu mean actually enforcing the law is a "political weapon"?

The point was, these Teabagging groups were applying for a tax exemption they weren't entitled to.

They were NOT "Social Welfare Agencies". They were political groups.

Period.

"Waaaa, you are oppressing me by not letting me commit fraud."

And here's the thing. There was a perfectly acceptable tax exemption they were entitled to.

But that one required them to disclose donors, as they should under the law.

They weren't enforcing the law. The IRS admitted that they had made a "mistake". Don't let facts be the enemy of your bias.

They should be.

I agree. The IRS should be enforcing the law as opposed to creating different standards for different political groups.