Translate

Wednesday, July 30, 2014

More Lois Lerner E-Mails

"A--holes"

Hat tip Daily Caller


Drip, drip, drip

In the latest e-mails released, IRS official Lois Lerner referred to conservatives as "a--holes" and"'crazies".

http://dailycaller.com/2014/07/30/lois-lerner-called-conservatives-assholes-fantasized-about-working-at-obama-group/

Now do you see why she took the 5th?

6 comments:

Miggie said...

It is another example of the leftist predilection of demonizing their enemies... FIRST. There is never any list of what policies they think are harmful, never any reasoned comment or debate... nothing but mindless hatred of their enemies.

I have a liberal friend who has now acknowledged that Obama, based on the facts, has been an abject failure. His fall back position was that at least he was better than Romney.

So I asked him for a list of all the things he thought Romney would have done and what basis he has for that assumption.

As always, that is the end of the conversation.

There was another one when another liberal I know thought Sarah Palin was absolutely horrible the morning after her speech before the Republican convention. I asked him why and he said "She was too 'blinky'... she blinked a lot" I asked is that it and that was all he could come up with. Nothing about what she said then or now just mindless demonetization.

Sol Alinsky would be proud of these useful idiots.

Miggie said...

Make that "demonization "

Damn spell checker!

Siarlys Jenkins said...

No, she was a fool to take the 5th. She has nothing to hide, and should be proud of doing her job well.

These emails don't change that. These emails should not have been sent on a government email account, she should have sent them on a personal email account. But they were not sent in the course of her official duties, and they are a legitimate expression of political opinion.

When a whole slew of brand new political advocacy groups are applying en masse for non-profit tax exempt status, obviously engaged in advocacy, almost certainly intending to influence elections, that is right on the ragged edge of partisan politicking, which would of course disqualify them. Neither the DNC nor the RNC nor any candidate's committee has non-profit tax-exempt status.

Clearly, this called for slow and careful scrutiny before approving anything.

Now if Lerner had initiated a wholesale review of the existing tax exempt status of long-standing organizations like the Heritage Foundation, that might be a scandal. But she didn't.

Miggie: that's what you get for asking a liberal. Saul Alinsky would have buried you. (Radicals are not liberals, socialists are not radicals, communists are only one variety of socialist.)

Gary Fouse said...

Proud? Did you say proud?

Thanks for getting my morning off to the right start.

Miggie said...

People can have their own political opinions but the IRS is SUPPOSED to be non-partisan. Nixon's second article of impeachment had exactly this "high crime". But Nixon only had an enemies list. He only DREAMED of doing what Lois Lerner actually did. I believe it changed the 2012 election result.

Hundreds of organizations that opposed the President were scrutinized and held up. Only Seven on Obama's side of the political spectrum were held up and quickly approved... including his half-brother's that bears his name.

If the IRS and the Justice System plays politics and discriminates we have the same system as any petty dictatorship or Soviet style of government.

It is like Shakespeare's Henry VIII when he muses "Oh, won't somebody rid me of this troublesome priest." Of course two of his men go and murder Beckett. Henry VIII didn't have to tell them what to do.

Every department and agency now has its own Lois Lerner types that are zealously doing what they think the boss would want them to do.

It will take decades to root them out as they use their regulatory powers to cripple political opponents.

Siarlys Jenkins said...

Miggie, if it changed the 2012 election result, then that would be prima facie evidence that those organizations were not eligible for tax exempt status at all. (Sour grapes Miggie -- you just haven't gotten over the fact that a majority of American voters preferred Barack Obama to Mittens).

Yes, Gary, I said "proud." They did a good job. They did what we pay them to do -- make sure that organizations seeking implicit subsidies from taxpayers meet the necessary qualifications.

This wasn't an comprehensive "enemies list," it was a list of new applicants. And Nixon wasn't going to deny tax exempt status to organizations, he was going to audit the tax returns of individuals. Big difference.

Henry II, Miggie, not Henry VIII. Henry II's wife was imprisoned for supporting their sons against their father, but she kept her head, and remained his wife. Of course kings always fooled around on the side.