There is a new twist to the whole IRS Scandal, and it is a big one. As it turns out, the IRS didn’t just target Conservative groups making application for 501 (c)(4) status, but targeted Conservative groups that already HAD status. WOW. I suppose it was only a matter of time before we found this out. The Hill has the particulars: [...] He (Issa) said the Virginia-based Leadership Institute was audited in 2011 and 2012 for activities it engaged in during the 2008 election year, even though it had functioned as a tax-exempt organization since 1979. It faced “invasive questions” — including about its interns and where they went on to work — and ended up turning over to the IRS more than 23,000 pages of documents at a cost of roughly $50,000 to comply with the inquiry, Issa said. “It has come to the attention of the committee that in addition to inappropriate treatment given to some applicants for tax-exempt status, existing organizations already recognized as tax-exempt by the IRS, appear to have faced questionable treatment by the IRS,” Issa wrote Monday in a letter to the Treasury inspector general (IG) for tax administration. But this was not the only organization to feel such scrutiny. There were more: [...]The head of another conservative group, the Clare Boothe Luce Policy Institute, claimed they faced “harassment” from the IRS, as they worked to comply with an audit that took most of a year and cost “tens of thousands of dollars.” The group was founded in 1993. On its website, the group describes its mission as “preparing and promoting conservative women leaders.” The existing probe into the IRS has so far failed to tie any of the IRS targeting to White House or high-ranking Treasury officials.[...] )Click here to read the rest.) Meanwhile, the Democrats, including President Obama, continue to promote the erroneous meme that Liberal groups also faced such scrutiny. While a VERY few did, it was nothing compared to the number of Conservative groups. And it is still political targeting, something the IRS should be above. Oh, and THIS, Mr. Lew, is why we have investigations, and don’t make claims until the investigation is complete. Just sayin’. This IS a scandal, and with each passing day, we are learning just how extensive it is. Another on-going scandal is what happened in Benghazi. STILL want to know who the hell came up with this BS video excuse, or how anyone even found out about it. It was obscure, and hardly viewed, so it does beg some questions. Speaking of questions, that is what Col. George Bristol can expect a LOT of when he appears before a House subcommittee on Wednesday. Col. George, as you may recall, was the former Task Chief for Northern and Western Africa, which included Benghazi. Congress has wanted to interview him for a while, as you might imagine: [...] Republicans have been pressing the military to allow Bristol to testify. They argue he has a unique perspective, given their concerns that the military wasn’t prepared to respond quickly to the Sept. 11, 2012, terrorist attack on the U.S. diplomatic annex that left four dead, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens. “Col. Bristol has experience that could be valuable in deepening our understanding of the events of that day,” a committee source told The Hill. “Of particular interest to the committee is what our posture was in the weeks and months that proceeded the attack.” Republicans have accused the Obama administration of downplaying or covering up the attack amid the heat of the 2012 presidential election, and they criticized the military’s posture in the run-up to the Sept. 11 anniversary. You may be wondering why it has taken so long for Col. Bristol to appear before the House Armed Services Subcommittee. Well, that is an excellent question. He should have. But there were some, um, ISSUES, with the Pentagon: [...]The Pentagon told CBS News on July 5 that Bristol, the commander of the Joint Special Forces Task Force-Trans Sahara, could not testify because he was retired. But the Marine Corps Times first reported two weeks ago that Bristol had not yet retired and was actually on active duty, preparing for retirement through the end of the month. Marine spokeswoman Maj. Shawn Haney said Bristol is in fact retiring from active duty on Aug. 1, which means he will be spending his last official day of service before Rep. Martha Roby’s (R-Ala.) Armed Services subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations. Haney said that Bristol was placed on the Marine Corps officers retired list on July 1, but he was voluntarily retained on active-duty until July 31 on terminal leave. [...] A Pentagon spokesman said Bristol was placed on the retired list on July 1 due to an administrative error. The spokesman said the Pentagon had been, and would continue to be, forthcoming on the investigation of the Benghazi attack. Bristol left his post as the special operations task force commander in March. At the change-of-command ceremony, he said that “an evil” has descended on Africa, according to Stars and Stripes. “It is on us to stomp it out.” [...] (Click here to read the rest.) Huh – “administrative error” – that’s what they are calling stonewalling these days? Seems to me that would have been a fairly easy mistake to rectify, and QUICKLY, not something that took months and months to realize. And it is just a tad curious that they didn’t “realize” it until RIGHT before Col. Bristol retired. That isn’t at ALL suspicious. Considering Col. Bristol’s comment at the change-of-command ceremony, I can understand why they wanted to keep him away from Congress. His testimony might just contradict the “phony” claim by President Obama that Al Qaeda is on the run. Just a thought. And now it’s your turn. Thoughts on the day? Stories you want to share? Let’s have it!
Posted on: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 04:52:12 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015