• Activity

    May 2013
    S M T W T F S
    « Apr   Jun »
  • Thumbed Up Love

  • Save the Puppies

    teh puppyblender
  • Corporate

  • Remember

  • Archives

  • Categories

  • Meta

White Groups Defend Federal Profiling of Minorities

Two columnists at that bastion of white privilege, New Republic, along with a like-minded colleague at the New Yorker, have taken to their organizations’ publications to defend the Internal Revenue Service’s targeting of minority groups, justifying the IRS’s actions to their overwhelmingly white, well-to-do readerships.

We begin this review of naked bigotry with Alec McGillis’s disinformation campaign to justify this abhorrent corruption of America’s polity:

You are in your cubicle in Cincinnati, and your office is suddenly swamped with a surge in applications—rising from 1,500 to 3,400 the past few years. This surge is driven by two factors. One is the series of court rulings, such as the Supreme Court’sCitizens United decision, that encourage political operatives to use 501(c)(4)’s as a way to funnel huge undisclosed donations into television ads, regardless of the IRS rules for the groups. The other is the swell in grassroots activism that is coming almost entirely from the right thanks to post-2008 tea party ferment.

McGillis is repeating a shameless, self-serving lie uttered by IRS apparatchiks:

Both Steven Miller, the agency’s acting commissioner until he stepped down Wednesday, and Lois Lerner, director of the agency’s exempt-organization division, have said over the past week that IRS officials started the scrutiny after observing a surge in applications for status as 501(c)(4) “social welfare” groups. Both officials cited an increase from about 1,500 applications in 2010 and to nearly 3,500 in 2012. President Obama ask Mr. Miller to resign on Wednesday.

The scrutiny began, however, in March 2010, before an uptick could have been observed, according to data contained in the audit released Tuesday from the Treasury Department’s inspector general for tax administration.

The number of 501(c)(4) applications for all of 2010 was actually less than in 2009.

That “Big Lie” is still being used to justify the IRS’s actions by like-minded bigots across the country.

Truth has no place in eliminationists’ rhetoric.


His colleague Jeffrey Toobin took a similar path, writing:

It’s important to review why the Tea Party groups were petitioning the I.R.S. anyway. They were seeking approval to operate under section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code. This would require them to be “social welfare,” not political, operations. There are significant advantages to being a 501(c)(4). These groups don’t pay taxes; they don’t have to disclose their donors—unlike traditional political organizations, such as political-action committees. In return for the tax advantage and the secrecy, the 501(c)(4) organizations must refrain from traditional partisan political activity, like endorsing candidates.

Again, a complete falsehood is presented regarding the requirements 501(c)(4) groups must adhere to:

“Social welfare” is a term of art that doesn’t mean exactly what it sounds like. To qualify, a group must have the aim of producing benefits that accrue to the community as a whole, not just its members. “Benefit” and “community” are construed broadly; organizations do not have to demonstrate that the policies they promote are good or that they benefit everyone.

You can see this in the IRS regulations governing 501(c)(4) groups. These groups may engage in unlimited lobbying related to their social welfare missions. The IRS offers these specific examples of acceptable activity: “promotion of legislation on animal rights,” “advocacy of anti-abortion legislation,” “legalization of currently illegal activity” and “advocacy of changes in the tax law.”

The groups can also engage in electioneering, even endorsing candidates. Here’s the IRS: “An exempt IRC 501(c)(4) organization may intervene in political campaigns as long as its primary activity is the promotion of social welfare.”

A practiced tactic of eliminationists: tell your audience lies to bring them to your side.

Toobin continues the 501(c)(4) definition deception, and deploys the “some of my best friends are” gambit (as inoculation against charges of discrimination), by decrying the lack of regulatory oversight on all such designated groups:

So the scandal—the real scandal—is that 501(c)(4) groups have been engaged in political activity in such a sustained and open way. As Fred Wertheimer, the President of Democracy 21, a government-ethics watchdog group, put it, “it is clear that a number of groups have improperly claimed tax-exempt status as section 501(c)(4) ‘social welfare’ organizations in order to hide the donors who financed their campaign activities in the 2010 and 2012 federal elections.”

Fred Wertheimer and his “government-ethics watchdogs” are presented as an ideologically disinterested group, when nothing could be further from the truth; they are part of the eliminationist conspiracy:

Several Soros-funded groups including the Campaign Legal Center, Democracy 21, the Center for Public Integrity, Mother Jones and Alternet have worked to pressure the IRS to target conservative nonprofit groups. The subsequent IRS investigation flagged more than 100 tea party-related applications for higher scrutiny, including applications that included the words “Tea Party” and “patriot.”
(TC: More on “non-partisan” Democracy 21 here.)

Similarly false–and drop dead stupid–501(c)(4) “facts” used defending the IRS was paired with “blame the victim” rhetoric in the hands of Noam Scheiber:

So why would so many Tea Party groups subject themselves to a lengthy and needless application process? Mostly it had to do with anxiety—the fear that they could run afoul of the law once they started raising and spending money. “Our business experience was that we had to pay taxes once there was money coming through here,” says Tom Zawistowski, the recent president of the Ohio Liberty Coalition, which tangled with the IRS over its tax status. “We felt we were under a microscope. … We were on pins and needles at all times.” In other words, the groups submitted their applications because they perceived themselves to be persecuted, not because they actually were…..

So the crime here had nothing to do with “targeting” conservatives. The targeting was effectively done by the conservative groups themselves, when they filed their gratuitous applications.

Trying to adhere to the law? Scoundrels! Ne-er Do Wells!

This, friends, is the Modern Left. If it will help them fulfill their agenda–an agenda fueling the Unicorn King and his Court–silencing dissent through lies and subterfuge is a feature, not a bug, in their programmed pursuit of the shiny Ameritopia they dream of achieving.

They are 21st Century, high tech descendants of the Klu Klux Klan.
These bastards need to be smashed flat.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Other Stuff


Advertisment ad adsense adlogger