published Sunday, June 16th, 2013

The Monster

about Clay Bennett...

The son of a career army officer, Bennett led a nomadic life, attending ten different schools before graduating in 1980 from the University of North Alabama with degrees in Art and History. After brief stints as a staff artist at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the Fayetteville (NC) Times, he went on to serve as the editorial cartoonist for the St. Petersburg Times (1981-1994) and The Christian Science Monitor (1997-2007), before joining the staff of the ...

246
Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.
AndrewLohr said...

"Amazing grace: an easy tax: Count ten and give God one..." video http://voices.yahoo.com/video/tax-day-song-5375697.html?cat=9 Bringing an IRS gun to a protest knife fight--Bush met his IRS head once, Obama met his 157 times--is worse, but the underlying laws and laws and laws and laws are bad enough.

June 16, 2013 at 12:37 a.m.
bret said...

Love the lamp.

June 16, 2013 at 12:41 a.m.
alprova said...

AndrewLohr wrote: "Bush met his IRS head once, Obama met his 157 times"

Andrew, you are quite behind in your understanding of the facts. That 157 visit clearance count was debunked and pared down to just a possible 5-11 visits total.

June 16, 2013 at 12:50 a.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

I mean what’s to complain about? It’s just the state using its police powers to intimidate and harm its political opponents. Isn’t that the standard throughout history for most peoples that usually lapse into broken down, third world, dictatorships?

After all the Conservative Tea Party viewpoint is one that no self respecting “progressive” nation can afford to tolerate. It’s a small price to pay to not expose our, or our impressionable children’s, tender ears to such vile ideas and beliefs. The holy progressive politically correct gospel is not to be defiled with such balderdash.

June 16, 2013 at 12:55 a.m.
blackwater48 said...

WHAT’S A 501C4?

The IRS defines these groups as ‘civic leagues, social welfare organizations, and local associations of employees. Net earnings have to go to charitable, educational, or recreational activities. They may participate in political activity but their primary purpose must not be supporting particular candidates or contributing to their campaign.

The real scandal is how some of these tea bagger groups achieved their tax-exempt status. Good grief.

One of these tea bagger groups claims their purpose in life is to, “…Build on the foundation of success we used to elect more governors, grab more seats in the House of Representatives and force the Washington establishment to respect the demands of ‘We The People.’”

Sound like a charitable group?

I’m sure there are left-leaning organizations who shouldn’t operate as a 501C4 either, so let’s change the law. Donor lists should not be confidential.

You know the expression, ‘Just because I’m paranoid doesn’t mean someone isn’t out to get me?’

Sometimes you’re just paranoid, but all 501C4 organizations should be reviewed and their tax status adjusted accordingly.

June 16, 2013 at 1:12 a.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

alprova said ...

Andrew, you are quite behind in your understanding of the facts. That 157 visit clearance count was debunked and pared down to just a possible 5-11 visits total.


You can possibly add to the 157 visits by Mr. Shulman another 165 visits by Sarah Hall Ingram, the director of the IRS division that targeted conservative and constitutional groups. That brings the total to 322 possible visits by senior I.R.S. officials.

I say “possible” because just like you I have no definitive correct number. The difference is that you are claiming a very small number due to no arrival times logged in at the White House. It has already been proven that the logging of arrival times is not a real indicator of whether a visit was made or not.

June 16, 2013 at 1:14 a.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

blackwater48 said...

Donor lists should not be confidential.


Doesn't that logically lead to declaring that the act of voting should not be confidential but conducted in open public meetings and published on web sites and newspapers.

After all both activities are Constitutional rights.

June 16, 2013 at 1:22 a.m.
fairmon said...

BW48 said...

I’m sure there are left-leaning organizations who shouldn’t operate as a 501C4 either, so let’s change the law. Donor lists should not be confidential.


Let's change the law and eliminate all exceptions including religious groups. The ultimate in separation of church and state would be the government not acknowledging such existed by exempting them from the tax system.

June 16, 2013 at 1:24 a.m.
hambone said...

EXCLUSIVELY!!!

June 16, 2013 at 1:29 a.m.
marmadukegarcia said...

Yes, awesome lamp. I want one!

June 16, 2013 at 1:30 a.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

There is no evidence that the FBI has contacted a single tea party group in its criminal investigation of the Internal Revenue Service, according to the groups the IRS abused.

The revelation suggests that the FBI is in no hurry to get to the bottom of the scandal, despite the Obama administration’s promise to investigate the IRS’s multi-year abuse of conservative groups.

But in separate testimony before congressional investigators Thursday, FBI Director Robert Mueller seemed completely unaware of the progress of any such investigation.

“This is the most important issue in front of the country in the last six weeks, and you don’t know who the lead investigator is?” Jordan asked, sounding shocked.

“At this juncture, no I do not,” Mueller responded.

“Do you know if you’ve talked to any of the victims?” Jordan went on. “Have you talked to any of the groups that were targeted by their government? Have you met with any of the tea party groups since May 14, 2013?”

“I don’t know what the status of the interviews are by the team that’s on it,” Mueller said.

By The Daily Caller

June 16, 2013 at 1:30 a.m.
alprova said...

JT Cut and Pasted: "There is no evidence that the FBI has contacted a single tea party group in its criminal investigation of the Internal Revenue Service, according to the groups the IRS abused."

One fundamental truth is that no one can force the FBI to investigate anything it may have determined not to be a valid complaint.

And apparently, that is irking some people.

The Tea-Party Republicans are going to be left with one choice, when this is all said and done.

They will not be able to force anyone to act upon their false demonstrations of outrage, so their retribution will be to attempt to reduce funding of the IRS.

June 16, 2013 at 1:56 a.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

alprova said ...

One fundamental truth is that no one can force the FBI to investigate anything it may have determined not to be a valid complaint.


That’s very odd since they work for Attorney General Eric Holder and he works for President Obama and the both promised in mid-May that the FBI would get to the bottom of the IRS’s behavior by opening a criminal investigation.

I guess they just winked when they passed that order down because they already knew who ordered this targeting of their political opponents.

June 16, 2013 at 2:24 a.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

95% Of IRS Lawyer Donations Went to Obama in 2012

by Wynton Hall:

An analysis by Pepperdine Law Professor Robert Anderson finds that 95% of Internal Revenue Service (IRS) lawyers who made donations to candidates in the 2012 presidential race gave to President Barack Obama's campaign.

“Lawyers are relevant because they are the ones taking the lead in writing regulations, litigating cases, and making delicate legal judgment calls in borderline cases,” writes Anderson.

Anderson says 32 times as much money flowed to “Obama as to Romney from IRS lawyers.”

He then conducted an analysis of lawyers in other agencies. The result: “the lawyers in every single federal government agency—from the Department of Education to the Department of Defense—contributed overwhelmingly to Obama compared to Romney.”

Anderson concludes, “The root of the problem is the rule by a class of career government employee lawyers who lack the diversity of opinion that is found in the non-lawyer private sector.”

June 16, 2013 at 2:29 a.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

by George F. Will:

Al Salvi .... was a prosperous lawyer and won the Republican Senate nomination to run against a Democratic congressman named Dick Durbin.

In the fall of 1996, at the campaign’s climax, Democrats filed with the Federal Election Commission charges against Salvi’s campaign alleging campaign finance violations. These charges dominated the campaign’s closing days.

Salvi spoke by telephone with the head of the FEC’s Enforcement Division, who he remembers saying: “Promise me you will never run for office again, and we’ll drop this case.” He was speaking to Lois Lerner.

After losing to Durbin, Salvi spent four years and $100,000 fighting the FEC. When the second of two federal courts held that the charges against Salvi were spurious, the lawyer arguing for the FEC was Lois Lerner.

More recently, she has been head of the IRS Exempt Organizations Division, which has used its powers of delay, harassment and extortion to suppress political participation.

In 2010, Durbin, who will seek a fourth term next year,wrote a letter urging Lerner’s IRS division to pay special attention to a political advocacy group supporting conservatives.

Lerner, it is prudent to assume, is one among thousands like her who infest the regulatory state. She is not just a bureaucratic bully and a slithering partisan. Now she also is a national security problem because she is contributing to a comprehensive distrust of government.

Government requires trust. Government by progressives, however, demands such inordinate amounts of trust that the demand itself should provoke distrust. Progressivism can be distilled into two words: “Trust us.”

The wise, disinterested experts through whom the vast powers of the regulatory state’s executive branch will deliver progress for our own good, as the executive branch understands this, whether we understand it or not. Lois Lerner is the scowling face of this state, which has earned Americans’ distrust.

June 16, 2013 at 2:48 a.m.
alprova said...

Jt...keep twirling like a ballerina, cutting a pasting that which we all have read days ago.

You're good at posting old news and trying to keep alive that which has died and is rotting on the vine.

June 16, 2013 at 3:10 a.m.
alprova said...

JT wrote: "That’s very odd since they work for Attorney General Eric Holder and he works for President Obama and the both promised in mid-May that the FBI would get to the bottom of the IRS’s behavior by opening a criminal investigation."

That was a month ago. It was a hot button issue. A month later, it has fizzled, Darrell Issa has dropped it, so they are giving it all the attention it deserves.

"I guess they just winked when they passed that order down because they already knew who ordered this targeting of their political opponents."

I guess so. Now prove it.

June 16, 2013 at 3:14 a.m.
fairmon said...

alprova said...

Darrell Issa has dropped it.

Are you sure? BW reported on 6/13 that his counterpart, Elijah Cummings, issued an opinion that all transcripts to date should be released and it should be put behind us and move on but Issa responded that it was not complete and Mr. Cummings press release was premature.

A lot of embarrassing and inappropriate behavior has been revealed. However, the IRS has a lot of authority and latitude so the probability of uncovering anything illegal is very remote.

I don't believe the president had any involvement or knowledge of the IRS targeting any individual or group. I wouldn't conclude the same about Valerie Jarrett but that link has not been implicated.

June 16, 2013 at 6:55 a.m.
conservative said...

The looney/Liberal left has had so many monsters.

da coold monstor is goin to git you!

da acide rain monstor is goin to git you!

da icebrrg monstor is goin to git you!

da nookler monstor is goin to get you!

da O sune monster is goin to git you!

da poplation monstor is goin to git you!

da heet monstor is goin to git you!

da Beg Oily monstor is goin to git you!

da koal monstor is goin to git you!

da goin through da climat change monstor is goin to git you!

da Frackingstein monstor is goin to git you!

June 16, 2013 at 8:03 a.m.
tifosi said...

HAHAHA!!!

June 16, 2013 at 8:22 a.m.
rick1 said...

fairmon wrote "I don't believe the president had any involvement or knowledge of the IRS targeting any individual or group."

All we hear is how intelligent Obama is and yet he never knows anything about anything.

I believe Obama did know, but if he didn't as you believe then why wasn't he told when the IRS apologized to the Treasury Department?

http://www.professorbainbridge.com/professorbainbridgecom/2013/05/if-obama-was-ceo-of-a-public-corporation-and-i-was-the-companys-general-counsel-would-i-have-told-hi.html

June 16, 2013 at 8:26 a.m.
tifosi said...

Tea Party = racists, bigots, hate, intolerance and Un-American.

June 16, 2013 at 9:15 a.m.
fairmon said...

rick1 said...

All we hear is how intelligent Obama is and yet he never knows anything about anything.


I have never accused Obama of being intelligent. In my opinion he is the white house flower, a blooming idiot. We may all be shocked and disappointed in what this president doesn't know about until he views or reads the news. He knows in the morning briefings what he handlers want him to know.

June 16, 2013 at 9:21 a.m.
alprova said...

Fairmon wrote: "alprova said...Darrell Issa has dropped it."

"Are you sure? BW reported on 6/13 that his counterpart, Elijah Cummings, issued an opinion that all transcripts to date should be released and it should be put behind us and move on but Issa responded that it was not complete and Mr. Cummings press release was premature."

I think you need to reread that article or find one a bit more accurate.

Elijah Cummings made the rounds a week ago, calling Issa out for "accusing and then searching for the evidence that proves him correct."

He further accused Issa of not releasing information that showed that assumptions and accusations he had made publicly were totally unfounded and if all the transcripts were released of testimony that was heard, it would prove damaging to Issa.

Issa offered a quick press release in response to Cumming's claims, to the effect..."I think we've found all we're going to find out about the IRS and I'll be wrapping it up," and nary a peep has been heard in a week.

"A lot of embarrassing and inappropriate behavior has been revealed. However, the IRS has a lot of authority and latitude so the probability of uncovering anything illegal is very remote."

From my vantage point, all I've heard was a bunch of accusations and all that was uncovered was evidence of increased scrutiny for groups seeking to take in lots of money from anonymous donors, desiring to use it for political purposes tax free and for purposes of influencing elections.

Maybe there should be a full investigation into 501c's.

And in light of a report released on May 13th that proves that of the total applications for tax-free status approval submitted since May of 2010, two-thirds of the ones approved were awarded to conservative groups, this is more evidence that the outrage was a little over the top and unfounded.

http://www.taxanalysts.com/www/features.nsf/Articles/D2A6C735EAFA7A9085257B7B004C0D90

"I don't believe the president had any involvement or knowledge of the IRS targeting any individual or group. I wouldn't conclude the same about Valerie Jarrett but that link has not been implicated."

Tea-Party political people founded their cause on the premises that they are over-taxed. Everything they do seethes of politics.

To have all these groups file for tax-exemption status and to be scrutinized a little closer for their motivations and use of donations has turned out to be quite warranted.

June 16, 2013 at 9:25 a.m.
PlainTruth said...

Tifosi said "Tea Party = racists, bigots, hate, intolerance and Un-American." tifosi, you're just kidding, right?

June 16, 2013 at 9:49 a.m.
rick1 said...

Fairmon wrote: “He knows in the morning briefings what he handlers want him to know.”

Yet it appears he is not holding any of these “handlers” accountable. In fact they have been promoted or sit at home on paid leave.

Unlike several of his former Inspector Generals who were either fired or did not have their contract renewed or left out of frustration.

There are six Inspector General Positions open , which Obama appears to be in no hurry to fill. These opening are in The Department of Homeland Security, DOD, Interior, Labor, State and the Agency for International Development. I’m sure you are aware the IG audits operations to find mismanagement and criminal activity and take a look at what has recently surfaced in the State Department with allegations of State Department employees sleeping with prostitutes.

IG Inspector Walpin was fired after he brought to the attention of Obama that Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson was misusing an AmeriCorp Grant. Turns out Johnson and Obama are a good friends.

Other IG’s who have left their positions, which include Amtrak’s Fred Weiderhold Treasury special IG Neil Barofsky, and International Trade Commission IG Judith Gwynn all left their positions after Obama was not please with their findings.

For a President who promised the most transparent presidency, it appears it has been anything but transparent.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/mar/23/report-faults-amtrak-execs-over-inspector-generals/

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505123_162-43548482/why-the-obama-administration-is-feuding-with-tarp-watchdog-neil-barofsky/

http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/third-inspector-general-removal-in-obama-government/blog-95885/?link=ibaf&q=why+did+International+Trade+Commission+IG+Judith+Gwynn+leave+the+obama+adminitsration

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/350911/why-irs-ig-stopped-audit-gerald-walpin

June 16, 2013 at 10 a.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

alprova said ...

I think you need to reread that article or find one a bit more accurate.


Rep. Elijah Cummings is backing away from his assertion that the investigation into the IRS scandal is “solved” and says he still wants to work with Republicans on the probe.

Cummings said the investigation isn’t over and he’s open to interviewing additional Cincinnati-based IRS employees and holding more hearings on the scandal.

The controversy started on Sunday when he told CNN’s Candy Crowley “the case is solved and if it were up to me, I would wrap this case up and move on.”

“Your public comments that ‘the case is solved’ and that you would ‘wrap this case up and move on’ stand in stark contrast to the facts,” oversight committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) wrote to him in a letter Tuesday. “There is still much that we do not know about how and why certain applications for tax-exempt status were denied, delayed or otherwise received heightened scrutiny from the IRS.”

The question of who ordered the IRS to flag tea party and other conservative groups seeking a tax exemption is central to the multiple congressional investigations into the debacle. House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp (R-Mich.), who is leading his own investigation, said Wednesday the practice didn’t start in Cincinnati, as the IRS has claimed.

Until Cummings clarified his statement, he appeared out of sync with other House Democrats who have said that the IRS investigation is far from complete.

“The issue of how the IRS got to the point of trying to examine more closely selected applications for 501(c)(4) status — that I don’t think is done,” said Ways and Means member Xavier Becerra (D-Calif.), the chairman of the House Democratic Caucus. “We still have more information to collect.”

Ways and Means ranking Democrat Sander Levin of Michigan also rejected the notion that the IRS investigation is winding down, noting that “the [Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration] is continuing their investigation, the Justice Department is continuing their investigation and the IRS is continuing their investigation.

“I think there’s more work to be done,” Levin said. “I think that both Elijah and I both believe that. … I don’t think anybody thinks it’s over.”

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/elijah-cummings-clarifies-irs-case-not-solved-92689.html#ixzz2WOGIK9wf

June 16, 2013 at 10:52 a.m.
PlainTruth said...

Port-siders have problems with clear statements...like Cummings, Holder, Carney, Clapper, et.al.

June 16, 2013 at 10:57 a.m.
jesse said...

By George, ALPROVA said IT WAS OVER!! They must notta got the message yet!

June 16, 2013 at 10:57 a.m.
jesse said...

I thougt Ms.Lerner made a real clear statement!"I'm pleading the 5th. and thats all i'm sayin!periot!"

June 16, 2013 at 11:06 a.m.
PlainTruth said...

Soooo, we're arming rebels. Does that mean we're in league with al-quaida?

June 16, 2013 at 11:14 a.m.
miraweb said...

Lots of conflicting information coming out about the NSA phone sweeps.

One source says they really only used "detailed" information 300 times.

I'd love to know what "detailed" vs "not detailed" means.

Cheney even resurfaced to claim that he could have prevented 9/11 (and polished the moon in gold!) if he'd only had this database.

Of course, if Cheney had just read through the memos titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the U.S." coming across his desk, things might have been different.

Can you imagine Dick "let's out a CIA agent today 'cause I'm ticked off" Cheney with access to something like PRISM?

He is the best proof we have that as useful as a resource like that might be, we do not have politicians who should ever be trusted to manage it.

June 16, 2013 at 11:17 a.m.
jesse said...

Don't worry P.T. after the rebs win they will be sendin some of them bullits back to us!!EXPRESS!

June 16, 2013 at 11:17 a.m.
PlainTruth said...

Jesse. Yeah, at about a million ft. per second.

June 16, 2013 at 11:28 a.m.

Another piece of Democrat Party propaganda from a kiss up.

Obama is heading into a mess in Syria. I guess since he got into the WH he kind of likes the idea of ordering troops into battle. What a power trip for a narcissist!

June 16, 2013 at 12:39 p.m.
blackwater48 said...

TEA BAGGER AMNESIA

Obama "kind of likes the idea of ordering troops into battle."

Like Iraq?

You know, because Bush invaded the wrong country? And we're winding another Bush excursion into Afghanistan.

Except for those I guess.

June 16, 2013 at 1:10 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

and BHO appears to be headed into another one all on his lonesome.

June 16, 2013 at 1:12 p.m.
DJHBRAINERD said...

Congress at the behest of Charlie Wilson armed the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan to fight the Soviets 3 decades ago , now we fight the Taliban. We armed Saddam as a counter to the Iranian revolution and helped him fight a 10 year war before he lost his usefulness. We lost 180 Marines helping with a civil war in Lebanon. Gaddafi renounced terrorism , gave up his weapons programs and courted the international community only to die in the streets like a rat in a hole. We got Benghazi for our efforts. Now we are supposed to believe that arming the correct group of rebels will somehow reshape the middle east in a favorable way? Been there done that. Why will it be any different this time? We are also to believe that after 2 years of fighting and momentum shifting to his side, victory almost in hand, that Assad has decided to use small amounts of chemical weapons so we have no choice but to intervene.....by arming the people that want to kill us... ........http://www.reactionface.info/sites/default/files/images/1312291457832.jpg....... (love the pic LIMRIC)

June 16, 2013 at 1:25 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

It’s odd these Tea Party folks haven’t uttered a peep about the blatant abuse of the 501 (c) 4 status. It seems to me if one is concerned about the wrongs that can occur within big government, one should be equally concerned about the wrongs that can occur within big corporations. In this case, it would be these big corporate lobbyists and operatives who are setting up these illegal political slush funds to conceal money in political campaigns.

"Since the Citizens United decision, 501(c)(4) groups, have operated as Super PACs—raising and spending tens of millions in corporate funds—without disclosing a dime of their contributors. IRS rules state that the primary activity of such groups cannot relate to political advocacy, yet examples abound of 501(c)(4) groups spending well over 50 percent of their funds on attack ads, political action committees and other clearly political expenses. These potential violations of the law have gone on for several years now, with very little interest from the Beltway media or Capitol Hill Republicans, many of whom owe their election to spending by bogus 501(c)(4) organizations."

Read more: Five 501(c)(4) Groups That Might Have Broken the Law | The Nation http://www.thenation.com/blog/174458/five-501c4-groups-might-have-broken-law#ixzz2WNpT7eIo

June 16, 2013 at 1:58 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

It seems the left is still smarting over the butt-whoppin the tea party put on the dems in the last mid terms. More to come?

June 16, 2013 at 2:31 p.m.
alprova said...

PT wrote: "It seems the left is still smarting over the butt-whoppin the tea party put on the dems in the last mid terms. More to come?"

Not a chance. While some of you who participate in this forum seem to be totally ignorant of the reputation and approval rates that Congressional Republicans have amassed since 2010, outside of core Republican supporters, no one is likely going to believe a word that a campaigning Republican will offer.

For four years, Republicans have wasted all their time on scandals that have produced very little in the form of proof, they have brought to the floor 37 times, bills to repeal ObamaCare, a procession of anti-abortion legislation, and most recently, have turned their backs on immigration reform.

Republicans were elected in 2010 on a platform that included rebuilding this nation's economy, and to date, they have sat on their hands and done nothing at all on that front.

The reason they have done nothing is in the hopes that Democrats will be blamed for the lack of progress in economic recovering.

But you know what? The economy is still improving, despite the Republicans refusal to do anything, and the people are very aware of it too. The mid-terms are going to be ugly and not many Republicans at all will be able to lay claim to a thing they have done legislatively to address the lagging economy.

No Sir, there will not be a repeat of 2010. The Tea-Party will not ride in on white horses to save the day.

The American people are wide awake and they know full and well that the Republicans are running out of tricks to try on the American people to attempt to sway their votes their way.

They've got nothing to run on, nothing to try to stop people from being allowed to vote, and nothing in their legislative records to back them up as proof that what they were elected to do four years ago, has come to pass.

June 16, 2013 at 3:07 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

Your ilk keeps bringing up the tea party, Alpy. Looks like sweat to me.

June 16, 2013 at 3:21 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

Does Bennett think the IRS is just and noble because he thinks the Tea Party is the bogey man?

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates his duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."

Thomas Paine

June 16, 2013 at 4:07 p.m.
fairmon said...

Alprova...We both know the only campaign fodder either party will have is how they can attack the other since neither has done anything to brag about. It is unfortunate the electorate is not attuned enough to the behavior of the elected elitist to clean house and insert a new party. I hope you are right about the economy but the underlying fundamentals don't support that contention. The stock market will do well and give a false sense of improvement as long as the Fed keeps digitalizing more money. You are an accountant so you know what that portends.

June 16, 2013 at 4:12 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

Miraweb said ...

Of course, if Cheney had just read through the memos titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the U.S." coming across his desk, things might have been different.


Here is the Presidential Daily Brief of August 6, 2001 that is always pointed to as proof that the Bush administration failed to heed warnings of the 911 attacks. The link below it is to a briefing paper that was released with the PDB. You are welcome to point to anything in that brief that was specific enough to direct Bush as to the correct preventative action to take.

It also points out that there were 70 full scale investigations ongoing at that time to determine what these threats were and their credibility.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB116/pdb8-6-2001.pdf

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB116/Fact%20Sheet.htm

Here is a link to an article in the LA Times that points to security professional’s failings in creating a safety screening process at airports that Bush would not have had any information to correct.

http://articles.latimes.com/2001/sep/23/news/mn-48940

The system worked the way it was intended, according to all the available evidence. For three decades, it has been preoccupied with looking for guns and explosives rather than for dangerous people. That, security experts and aviation professionals say, was its vulnerability. The terrorists did not breach the nation's airport security system; they slipped through its loopholes.

Nothing in Federal Aviation Administration rules and regulations--even assuming they were followed to the letter--would have prevented the hijackers from carrying out their baleful missions, considering what is known so far about the plot to hijack jetliners and suicide-dive them into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.


Can you imagine Dick "let's out a CIA agent today 'cause I'm ticked off" Cheney


Do you actually know who originally outed the CIA agent or are you just parroting some liberal talking point you read somewhere?

June 16, 2013 at 4:50 p.m.
rick1 said...

Al, Harry Reid has refused to bring 15 House bills that dealt with jobs to the Senate floor for a vote.

With each day we are finding out more and more on how much of a disaster ObamaCare is and the Democrats will pay for that in 2014.

http://www.freedomworks.org/blog/jborowski/15-real-jobs-bills-stalled-in-the-senate

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2013/06/16/report-obamacare-loophole-hammers-many-lowwage-workers-n1620803

June 16, 2013 at 4:55 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

mountainlaurel said...

It’s odd these Tea Party folks haven’t uttered a peep about the blatant abuse of the 501 (c) 4 status.


Why are you so specific in your critique of tax exempt groups involving themselves in political activity that you direct you total focus on 501(c)4’s? Why not the other 501(c)’s such as labor unions and liberal NGO’s?

Could it be that the real point is that you want to know the names of people that contribute to organizations you oppose? Why would the left want to acquire those names other than to target them for harassment to send a message to them and others not to support such groups.

Sure sounds like an un-American way to deal with our Constitutional right of free speech and the right to petition our elected officials to address our grievances. Isn’t this the type of activity that the secret ballot was instituted to prevent?

June 16, 2013 at 5:18 p.m.
alprova said...

rock1 wrote: "Al, Harry Reid has refused to bring 15 House bills that dealt with jobs to the Senate floor for a vote."

Those are not jobs bills. They are bills offered, for the most part, to gut the EPA from regulating unsafe practices that pollute our waters and air.

According to the CBO, the percentage of jobs that those 15 bills would increase amounts to 0.4%, if that.

"With each day we are finding out more and more on how much of a disaster ObamaCare is and the Democrats will pay for that in 2014."

No. What we are finding out is that there is no shortage of people out there who are offering baseless accusations before all the evidence is on the table.

This October, when the plans are to be rolled out for the public, let's be sure to revisit the issue. Until then, it's a guessing game, at best.

June 16, 2013 at 5:42 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

A.L.: Perhaps your intractable patisanship prevents you from seeing another POV.

June 16, 2013 at 5:45 p.m.
alprova said...

PT wrote: "Your ilk keeps bringing up the tea party, Alpy. Looks like sweat to me."

Oh...excuse me. I was sure that this was today's subject.

Silly me...

June 16, 2013 at 5:45 p.m.
alprova said...

PT wrote: "A.L.: Perhaps your intractable patisanship prevents you from seeing another POV."

Do you mean like you do all the time?

June 16, 2013 at 5:47 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

alprova said...

While some of you who participate in this forum seem to be totally ignorant of the reputation and approval rates that Congressional Republicans have amassed since 2010, outside of core Republican supporters, no one is likely going to believe a word that a campaigning Republican will offer.


Isn’t it true that most voters, now and historically, hold Congress in such low esteem due to their disapproval of the congresspersons, both Republican and Democratic, elected by other political divisions and not their specific representative? That’s why there are so many incumbents re-elected.


For four years, Republicans have wasted all their time


Actually the Republicans took control of the House in Jan. 2011 and whether they have wasted their time or held to the principals of their constituents is dependent upon where you stand politically.


Republicans were elected in 2010 on a platform that included rebuilding this nation's economy, and to date, they have sat on their hands and done nothing at all on that front.


Isn’t that a “two way street” in that their attempts to pass their policies into law have been blocked by the liberals just as you feel the opposite?


The reason they have done nothing is in the hopes that Democrats will be blamed for the lack of progress in economic recovering.


Aren’t you hoping the inverse even though the Liberals have been more than unwilling to compromise due to their control of the Senate and the White House?


But you know what? The economy is still improving, despite the Republicans refusal to do anything, and the people are very aware of it too. The mid-terms are going to be ugly and not many Republicans at all will be able to lay claim to a thing they have done legislatively to address the lagging economy.


The Democrats are in a no win situation on the economy in that if it falters they will be blamed and if it improves as you say then the electorate will be more likely to vote on other issues than the economy i.e. scandals and administrative and legislative incompetence.


No Sir, there will not be a repeat of 2010.


It’s a little early to say but most odds-makers are saying the House will not change hands and the Republicans will pick up seats in the Senate. Enough to take control is about an even bet.

June 16, 2013 at 5:54 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

I've shown more give & take than you, Alpy.

June 16, 2013 at 5:55 p.m.
rick1 said...

Al, over regulation by the EPA is killing job growth.

In regards to ObamaCare do you currently offer health insurance to your employees?

Will you offer or continue to offer health insurance to your employees in 2014?

http://blog.heritage.org/2011/08/04/is-the-president-serious-about-jobs-and-economic-growth-a-simple-test/

June 16, 2013 at 6:10 p.m.
alprova said...

PT ^"I've shown more give & take than you, Alpy."

Would you care to take a poll among the regulars on that?

June 16, 2013 at 6:12 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Jt6gR3hM said: "Why are you so specific in your critique of tax exempt groups involving themselves in political activity that you direct you total focus on 501(c)4’s? Why not the other 501(c)’s such as labor unions and liberal NGO’s?'

Unlike most of these corporations, USA labor unions aren’t trying to keep their political contributions a big secret from American voters. In fact, it's just the opposite.

Jt6gR3hM said: "Why would the left want to acquire those names other than to target them for harassment to send a message to them and others not to support such groups."

You Republican Tea Party folks just love to set up these double standards . . . Don’t you? Indeed, you rant and rave about voter fraud and a need to set up special Voter ID laws, but when it comes to campaign laws you folks are more than willing to make it easy for any foreigner or foreign corporation to shovel money into the U.S. election process.

"Jt6gR3hM said..."Sure sounds like an un-American way to deal with our Constitutional right of free speech and the right to petition our elected officials to address our grievances."

Nice try, but it’s not un-American to want to know who is contributing money toward the U.S. election process. In fact, it’s just the opposite. It would be dumb not to want to know.

June 16, 2013 at 6:16 p.m.
alprova said...

rick1 wrote: "Al, over regulation by the EPA is killing job growth."

There's very little proof to that. As I pointed out, the CBO estimates that the regulations that the Republicans want overturned or turned over to the states, would only boost employment about 4 tenths of a percent.

"In regards to ObamaCare do you currently offer health insurance to your employees?"

Yes I do.

"Will you offer or continue to offer health insurance to your employees in 2014?"

Yes I will. As a matter of fact, I will be receiving a 15% increase in the tax credit I currently receive for providing those benefits in 2014, as well as a full deduction from the amount of business income for the amount I pay towards the cost of their coverage.

June 16, 2013 at 6:17 p.m.
fairmon said...

alprova said....

According to the CBO, the percentage of jobs that those 15 bills would increase amounts to 0.4%, if that.

That would be a lot of people working and paying taxes and bring unemployment down. Harry Reid has to much control, why no vote?

June 16, 2013 at 6:18 p.m.
rick1 said...

Al, have you been told if the premiums will increase for next year?

June 16, 2013 at 6:20 p.m.
fairmon said...

Alprove and mountainlaurel think dems are good and pubs are bad regardless of how crazy or good their initiative may be. If Obama suddenly concluded we needed to invade and bomb Syria they would probably eventually conclude it was a stroke of genius. Should he insist the IRS should target certain groups based on their political ideology and some NYT journalist and Pelosi supported it they would.

They often criticize Libertarian but fail to point out the principles they don't like....It seems they have political religion like some people have "preacher religion".

June 16, 2013 at 6:25 p.m.
alprova said...

Fairmon wrote: "That would be a lot of people working and paying taxes and bring unemployment down. Harry Reid has to much control, why no vote?"

Because those bills do very little for employment. The rescinding of those regulations will do great harm to our environment and pad the pockets of those who want such regulations overturned, and there is little if any proof that they would hire one more employee, for the most part. They want to make more money at the expense of forgoing measures in place to assure clean air and water standards.

Not every bill proposed by one House or the other makes it to the floor. John Boehner has held up and prevented votes on bills passed on down to them from the Senate as well.

Just off the top of my head, I recall Sequestor legislation, several gun bills, and most recently, the farms bill, not to mention several stand-alone pieces of legislation directly related to jobs, and not bills disguised and touted as jobs bills.

June 16, 2013 at 6:35 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

What fairmon said.

June 16, 2013 at 6:53 p.m.
alprova said...

Fairmon wrote: "Alprove and mountainlaurel think dems are good and pubs are bad regardless of how crazy or good their initiative may be."

I've disagreed with Democratic initiatives on occasion.

"If Obama suddenly concluded we needed to invade and bomb Syria they would probably eventually conclude it was a stroke of genius."

If there is one issue where I have never deviated a bit, it is my opposition to this country's involvement in war excursions in other nations, with an exception of Israel and South Korea.

I would be highly upset if Obama involves our military in Syria.

"Should he insist the IRS should target certain groups based on their political ideology and some NYT journalist and Pelosi supported it they would."

Sir, I have stated more than once that I have zero regard, support, or respect for Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.

"They often criticize Libertarian but fail to point out the principles they don't like....It seems they have political religion like some people have "preacher religion"."

I myself identify with very much what Libertarians stand for, but the kooks seem to put me off to declaring myself to be on board with Libertarians.

And...as you exemplify, you seem to dislike everyone who isn't a Libertarian.

June 16, 2013 at 7:05 p.m.
alprova said...

rick1 wrote: "Al, have you been told if the premiums will increase for next year?"

Not yet, but I will be studying intently, any and all of the pooled plans that are poised to roll out in October, as will all people not currently flapping their wings in response to all the hype and unsubstantiated assumptions that are ongoing at the moment.

June 16, 2013 at 7:11 p.m.
alprova said...

Rick1, I watched the entire video you posted at 6:19 pm.

I find that the man's claim of ignorance to the legality of what the building he was in charge of as a certified engineer, to have been doing to be totally ludicrous.

It doesn't take an engineer to see the absolute wrong in dumping raw sewage into any waterway that does not flow to a contained pool where every drop is filtered to remove waste before it flows into open waterways.

What country do you think you live in? It might be okay to do that in Mexico, but most people in this country, with very little education on tap, know that any raw sewage is not to be dumped, as is, into open water of any kind.

And this man was a building engineer. If an engineer doesn't see anything wrong with what they were doing, then I damn sure want an EPA to take notice of such stupidity and to prosecute guilty people for it.

He pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor. He spent not one day in jail.

Given the residue of diseases and raw filth that was discharged into waterways that most assuredly came in contact with other humans and wildlife, for years, I'd say he got off practically Scot-free.

The fisherman's story is a bit more justified as an example of overreach in prosecution, but I would have to know more about the particular law cited to make a clear judgment. I don't take the author's word that it was cut and dried and a clearcut case of overreach.

June 16, 2013 at 7:34 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Fairmon says: “Alprove and mountainlaurel think dems are good and pubs are bad regardless of how crazy or good their initiative may be. If Obama suddenly concluded we needed to invade and bomb Syria they would probably eventually conclude it was a stroke of genius.”

My goodness. . . You're being a bit harsh here, Fairmon. . . But I guess this is your way of saying that you don’t like what I had to say earlier about the Republican and Tea Party’s double standard when it comes to the U.S. election process. . . Oh well. . . It’s the truth.

The Republicans and their Tea Party folks have ranted and raved about voter fraud and an alleged need to set up all of these special Voter ID laws, but when it comes to campaign contribution ID laws they’re more than willing to make it easy for any foreigner or foreign corporation to shovel money into the U.S. election process.

June 16, 2013 at 7:59 p.m.
alprova said...

It's a sad day in America when Paul McCartney must play a gig at Bonnaroo to make a few bucks.

I hope it's not because he needed them.

June 16, 2013 at 8:15 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

McCartney est. worth...$1b

June 16, 2013 at 9:04 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Don't go all "Google" on us, PlainJackoff.

LMFAO! Let me guess, you knew McCartney's estimated net worth off hand, right?

June 16, 2013 at 9:24 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

For years, moron.

June 16, 2013 at 9:27 p.m.
Easy123 said...

PlainJackoff,

So you've known Paul McCartney's $1 billion estimated net worth for "years" despite him only reaching that mark a little over a year ago?

Try again, dumbass.

Don't "Google" yourself too hard the next time you're trying to divulge some "off hand" information. Wouldn't want your heart to give out, you geriatric putz.

June 16, 2013 at 10:14 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

Mountainlaurel said ...

It’s not un-American to want to know who is contributing money toward the U.S. election process. In fact, it’s just the opposite. It would be dumb not to want to know.


So I guess you are alright with our votes being made public so that friends, neighbors, employers, political office holders, civic leaders, business owners, government employees and political opponents can readily know who you voted for so they can tailor their interactions with you to fit their needs?

If not then why should those same people be allowed to know who I spent my money on as long as I don’t violate “reasonable” election laws.

June 16, 2013 at 10:49 p.m.
dude_abides said...

PlainTruth said... "Soooo, we're arming rebels. Does that mean we're in league with al-quaida?"

Soooo, you're trashing the Americans, does that mean you're in league with Putin?

June 16, 2013 at 11:10 p.m.
alprova said...

JT wrote: "So I guess you are alright with our votes being made public so that friends, neighbors, employers, political office holders, civic leaders, business owners, government employees and political opponents can readily know who you voted for so they can tailor their interactions with you to fit their needs?"

I don't believe that Mountainlaural made mention of making votes public. Her concerns, as are many Americans, involve the influx of money from foreign sources used to influence the outcome of our elections.

Donations to political organizations, even tax-exempt ones, should always be public knowledge.

"If not then why should those same people be allowed to know who I spent my money on as long as I don’t violate “reasonable” election laws."

Everything seems to be okay with you, and others like yourself, so long as it is done by political operatives you agree with.

It used to be that people tried to influence elections with their ideas, ideals, and ideology, to be better.

Now it seems that cheating, deception, and outright attempts to limit people from exercising their right to vote, have replaced honest elections.

June 16, 2013 at 11:27 p.m.
alprova said...

I am confused a little about the Syrian struggle. 74% of the population of Syria is Sunni Muslims.

The Government of Syria, if I have an understanding of it, is dominated by Alawites, a form of Shia Muslims.

So, am I to assume that Sunni Muslims are the good guys and Shia Muslims are the bad guys?

Could it actually be that the United States has decided to actually take sides in a holy war between two factions of Islam?

Isn't that kinda like Catholics taking up arms against the Baptists?

June 16, 2013 at 11:44 p.m.
alprova said...

Snowden did it again.

Now the world will want the man dead or hail him as a hero. Either way, the UK Government is a little upset tonight.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jun/16/gchq-intercepted-communications-g20-summits#start-of-comments

June 16, 2013 at 11:54 p.m.
alprova said...

Gibbs: Issa charges against IRS ‘shameful,’ owes agency apology

On Monday, Gibbs shot back, saying that Issa should make the interviews public if they exist or apologize to the IRS staffers for his charges.

"If he’s got information that these people lied, he should put it out there today," Gibbs said. "If he doesn't have information that they lied, then he should call each of them up personally and apologize, because this kind of discourse is why people lose confidence in their institutions."

Read the entire article;

http://thehill.com/video/in-the-news/302973-gibbs-blasts-issa-for-shameful-claims-against-irs#ixzz2WRYO5ZZk

June 17, 2013 at 12:12 a.m.
fairmon said...

mountainlaurel said....

when it comes to campaign contribution ID laws they’re more than willing to make it easy for any foreigner or foreign corporation to shovel money into the U.S. election process.

I agree and they have some dems in agreement. I personally think every dollar should be reported by name and contributions limited to one person per contribution. No corporations, businesses, unions etc. etc. allowed to contribute or to send a contribution with the names of those supposedly making the contribution. Most offices now go to the highest bidder. Campaign spending should be limited. Basing the amount allowed on the number of eligible voters the candidate is trying to solicit a vote from may be a good criteria. Enforcing it would be a real nightmare.

June 17, 2013 at 12:50 a.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

alprova said...

I don't believe that Mountainlaural made mention of making votes public.


Well that is the problem of jumping into other’s discussions when you haven’t made yourself aware of the history of such. If you had you would know that my original post on that matter linked donations and voting and keeping them both private. Mountainlaurel wanted to respond to my post but not in its context because she obviously didn’t want to address both linked points together.


Everything seems to be okay with you, and others like yourself, so long as it is done by political operatives you agree with.


That could just as well be applied to you as me, although falsely in both cases ... Right?


It used to be that people tried to influence elections with their ideas, ideals, and ideology, to be better.


You can’t influence elections with those attributes unless you can have them heard on the widest scale possible and that takes money which is considered political speech when used in that context.


Now it seems that cheating, deception, and outright attempts to limit people from exercising their right to vote, have replaced honest elections.


Are you referring to the government’s use of its police powers to target conservative political groups in an attempt to illegally influence the 2012 elections?

June 17, 2013 at 1 a.m.
fairmon said...

No one seems concerned that Lerner stone walled the IRS investigation. She refused to answer her employers questions but continues to be employed with full pay. Congress is full of lawyers with prosecution or defense experience and some with other legal experience. Thus far none of them have demonstrated the slightest ability to conduct a good cause and effect investigation.

Of course neither party wants too much truth since it would splatter on all of them.

June 17, 2013 at 1:01 a.m.
fairmon said...

I can't see any justification for any tax exemptions. However, if they are to be they should certainly not be granted to any tax exempt organization that participates in politics or contributes to a political party or cause or spends any money to affect the voting results. Is AARP exempt? If so why? How many lobbyist or lawyers are employed to gain government support by exempt organizations?

June 17, 2013 at 1:09 a.m.
alprova said...

Fairmon wrote: "Is AARP exempt?"

Parts of their enterprises are tax-exempt and taxable. The part that receives membership donations is tax-exempt. The part that receives royalties from the soliciting and servicing of AARP approved insurance plans and policies is taxable.

"If so why?"

Their published materials are designed to educate their members to matters that concern them. Yes, they touch on politics and contribute heavily when the issue involves older Americans.

Thus, over the past decade, they have contributed more than a billion dollars, 90% of it at the state level, to lobby for passage of legislation that it feels is positive towards seniors.

It is interesting to note that AARP tends to contribute more to the Republican Party than to the Democrat Party, but when contributing to individual candidates, they tend to favor Democrats.

"How many lobbyist or lawyers are employed to gain government support by exempt organizations?"

Thousands, maybe even tens of thousands. At last check, AARP had more than sixty lobbyists on tap, just in Washington D.C.

It's big business and not likely to go away any time soon. Elections are all about money anymore. Those who have it win. Those who have less don't.

June 17, 2013 at 1:53 a.m.
jjmez said...

re: * She refused to answer her employers questions but continues to be employed with full pay. *


Lerner only refused to answer questions because of the threat of prosecution. Which anyone except the extreme naïve would have done the same.


re: *Is AARP exempt? If so why? *


You forget, it was the type of tax exempt status so many Tea Partiers tried to file under that raised the red flag with the IRS. 501(c)(4). There are several lesser restricted tax exempt codes. One of those may have been the one AARP files under. Do you know which tax exempt code they use?

June 17, 2013 at 3:06 a.m.
fairmon said...

alprova explains why AARP is a tax exempt entity....

"If so why?"

Their published materials are designed to educate their members to matters that concern them. Yes, they touch on politics and contribute heavily when the issue involves older Americans.

Thus, over the past decade, they have contributed more than a billion dollars, 90% of it at the state level, to lobby for passage of legislation that it feels is positive towards seniors.


These are to me good reason not to be tax exempt. The more I learn about who is tax exempt and why the more irritated I get.

Obama wants me and others to pay more taxes while by default am already and will be adding to my support of those exempt entities whether I agree with their objectives or not.

Those who support religious groups being exempt may have second thoughts when they realize that Mosque and their clergy are exempt also. I would not be surprised to learn the KKK is exempt as well.

Anyone have any idea what the dollar value is of the tax exemptions of all those exempt organizations and individuals, in other words how much in taxes would have been paid on their revenue?

IT IS PAST TIME FOR SWEEPING TAX REFORM WITHOUT BIAS OR FAVOR TO ANY INDIVIDUAL OR GROUP OF INDIVIDUALS.

June 17, 2013 at 4:39 a.m.
fairmon said...

Exemptions and mandates are going to cost tax payers dearly in addition to higher than predicted health care premiums. An example of a costly mandate reported by CNBC is that under Obamacare, genetic counseling and testing must be provided without patient cost-sharing for women whose family history indicates high risk. Angelina Jolie's genetic testing cost over $3,000. She chose double mastectomy and reconstructive surgery which was most likely paid by her insurance. She chose surgery over monitoring after genetic testing indicated she had a high probability rating.

June 17, 2013 at 5:13 a.m.
alprova said...

Fairmon wrote: "Exemptions and mandates are going to cost tax payers dearly in addition to higher than predicted health care premiums. An example of a costly mandate reported by CNBC is that under Obamacare, genetic counseling and testing must be provided without patient cost-sharing for women whose family history indicates high risk. Angelina Jolie's genetic testing cost over $3,000."

While that is true, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a ruling that opened the door to competition that will drive the cost down tremendously for Genetic DNA testing. It is predicted to fall into the low $100's by the time ObamaCare kicks in.

Just five years ago, the cost of testing was over a million dollars.

"She chose double mastectomy and reconstructive surgery which was most likely paid by her insurance. She chose surgery over monitoring after genetic testing indicated she had a high probability rating."

Whatever the case may have been, Angelina Jolie either wrote a check to pay for the surgery or paid for a high end plan, 'cause she has lots of cash on hand.

Keep in mind that even if a woman is found to have the gene, ObamaCare does not prescribe that everyone must be whisked into a surgery room for a double mastectomy. Most will step up their testing schedule to monitor for breast cancer.

June 17, 2013 at 6:52 a.m.
alprova said...

Fairmon wrote: "Anyone have any idea what the dollar value is of the tax exemptions of all those exempt organizations and individuals, in other words how much in taxes would have been paid on their revenue?"

The Foundation Center estimates that there are upwards of 1.5 million tax-exempt organizations in this country. Many organizations have income of less than $25,000 and fall under the radar because they do not have to file a form 990 with the IRS.

Average income for tax-exempt organizations? One figure I ran across stated that it the average income per year for tax-exempt entities is $7.8 million.

If that figure is close, and if tax-exempt organizations were taxed as businesses, it could potentially bring in $2-4 trillion a year into the Treasury, unless such organizations were to actually be able to justify that they have valid expenses and actually delivered funds out to recipients.

There's a flip side to that. If exemptions were eliminated, those recipients would have to report charity as income and then would have to cough up taxes on that amount as well, which may or may not be a bad thing either.

Tax-exempt status is handed out like candy and there are many operators out there that should be in prison, in my opinion, because there are way too many bad apples out there who have been exposed for taking in lots of cash and failing to deliver more than a minute percentage of what they rake in to those they claim to be raising it for.

CNN did an exposé just the other day on a family that is operating a number of charities that have delivered next to nothing to those they claim to be serving.

June 17, 2013 at 7:20 a.m.
alprova said...

JT wrote: "Well that is the problem of jumping into other’s discussions when you haven’t made yourself aware of the history of such."

The irony of that statement, coming from you, made me laugh out loud. The bulk of your posts, when you are not copying and pasting old news, consist of you jumping in on other people's exchanges.

"If you had you would know that my original post on that matter linked donations and voting and keeping them both private."

Who cares what your first post and point was? Voting in elections has always been private. All political donations used to be public information.

"Mountainlaurel wanted to respond to my post but not in its context because she obviously didn’t want to address both linked points together."

Nor would have I, for the reason I cited above. Your decision to link the two is quite pointless, because this IRS mess has exposed a very corrupt and recent change that allows for donor lists to be kept under wraps, which I am rather confident has resulted in violations of campaign related donation laws.

"That could just as well be applied to you as me, although falsely in both cases ... Right?"

You're the one defending it. Not I.

"You can’t influence elections with those attributes unless you can have them heard on the widest scale possible and that takes money which is considered political speech when used in that context."

If any group makes political donations, the source of every cent of that money should be publicly disclosed...period.

"Are you referring to the government’s use of its police powers to target conservative political groups in an attempt to illegally influence the 2012 elections?"

Haven't you been keeping up with the latest? It seems that those charges have all but been proven to be false, or Darrell Issa would have coughed up the proof when called out by one of his fellow Representatives and a former White House Staff Member to do so.

The silence has been quite deafening this past week.

June 17, 2013 at 7:38 a.m.
alprova said...

jjmez wrote: "There are several lesser restricted tax exempt codes. One of those may have been the one AARP files under. Do you know which tax exempt code they use?"

All of AARP's tax exempt entities are 501c(3)'s.

June 17, 2013 at 7:49 a.m.
fairmon said...

alprova said...

While that is true, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a ruling that opened the door to competition that will drive the cost down tremendously for Genetic DNA testing. It is predicted to fall into the low $100's by the time ObamaCare kicks in.

The Supreme Court ruling sounds good but there will be much less R&D with no patent rights enabling the recovery of the cost of developing a genetic diagnostic and treatment process. I think it may have been Abraham Lincoln that said the "patent is the greatest invention of all inventions" or something to that effect. I don't like paying the high initial cost but patents provide the incentive for those willing to take risk.

June 17, 2013 at 7:54 a.m.
PlainTruth said...

ALPO has overcome "writers block"

June 17, 2013 at 8:01 a.m.
alprova said...

Fairmon wrote: "The Supreme Court ruling sounds good but there will be much less R&D with no patent rights enabling the recovery of the cost of developing a genetic diagnostic and treatment process."

When it comes to medical research, no one entity should be granted exclusive rights to anything on a permanent basis.

"I think it may have been Abraham Lincoln that said the "patent is the greatest invention of all inventions" or something to that effect. I don't like paying the high initial cost but patents provide the incentive for those willing to take risk."

And the one company that developed genome testing was quite protected for more than 13 years. Initial costs for the tests were $3 million. I don't know how many people could afford such a price, but the Supreme Court was right to open up the market to competition.

For profit health care that only benefits those with deep pockets, including research and development, should be totally outlawed in my opinion. I'm all for anyone making a reasonable profit, but there should be limits to everything.

Thankfully, there are many, many people who are not in the research game to make the big bucks. I am currently being treated by one such research facility.

Some are in it to simply help people who are sick and God Bless them for it too. I'm sure that God will have a special place in Heaven for such people.

June 17, 2013 at 8:07 a.m.
alprova said...

PT wrote: "ALPO has overcome "writers block"..."

When I publish my first book, I'll be sure to dedicate it to you.

I know you won't read a thing past the dedication page.

June 17, 2013 at 8:10 a.m.
PlainTruth said...

alpo: the dedication "page" would run about 150 pages.

June 17, 2013 at 8:13 a.m.
alprova said...

Naw it wouldn't...

It would simply read..."To Jack"

Would that meet your approval?

After all, everyone should post to please you.

June 17, 2013 at 8:23 a.m.
fairmon said...

alprova said...

If that figure is close, and if tax-exempt organizations were taxed as businesses, it could potentially bring in $2-4 trillion a year into the Treasury, unless such organizations were to actually be able to justify that they have valid expenses and actually delivered funds out to recipients.

Thanks for the information alprova. Whatever the final amount it would do a lot toward balancing the budget unless congress just used it to justify more spending.

June 17, 2013 at 8:25 a.m.
PlainTruth said...

As long as you're happy, alpy, I'm happy.

June 17, 2013 at 8:29 a.m.
alprova said...

Fairomon wrote: "Thanks for the information alprova. Whatever the final amount it would do a lot toward balancing the budget unless congress just used it to justify more spending."

Ugh...If there is one thing that has always been in evidence, it is that there is no limit to what Congress can come up with to spend money on.

I'm not for abolishing all charities, but there are many that should not only be shut down, but all their assets seized and their operators imprisoned for life.

June 17, 2013 at 8:30 a.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Jt6gR3hM said: "So I guess you are alright with our votes being made public . . . If not then why should those same people be allowed to know who I spent my money on as long as I don’t violate “reasonable” election laws."

Your argument that votes and campaign contributions are equivalent doesn’t fly for a variety of reasons. For starters, every adult citizen in America is entitled to one vote. Each citizen has equal power. In other words, one citizen’s vote doesn’t have any more influence than another citizen’s vote. Clearly, the same can’t be said when it comes to campaign contributions.

June 17, 2013 at 8:46 a.m.
alprova said...

Oh looky looky....the Republicans have a new press release on the IRS scandal. It's being touted as proof that Washington was in on the scrutinizing of Tea-Party groups, but as usual, it falls flat on its nose.

"Paz said agents in Cincinnati openly talked about handling "tea party" cases, but she thought the term was merely shorthand for all applications from groups that were politically active -- conservative and liberal."

"Paz said dozens of tea party applications sat untouched for more than a year while field agents waited for guidance from Washington on how to handle them. At the time, she said, Washington officials thought the agents in Cincinnati were processing the cases."

"Paz said she didn't think the agents in Cincinnati were politically motivated."

"In all, agents singled out 298 applications for additional scrutiny because the groups appeared to be involved in political activity, the inspector general's report said. But IRS agents in Cincinnati weren't given adequate training on how to handle the cases until May 2012, the report said."

"Before the training, only six applications had been approved. Afterward, an additional 102 applications were approved by December 2012, the report said."

"Of those 102 applications, 29 involved tea party, patriots, or 9-12 organizations, the report said. Many applications are still awaiting action. None has been rejected, according to the IRS."

All this boils down to is that had these groups chosen a more apolitical name for their organizations, their applications might not have received all that extra scrutiny.

Nothing in this new release of information points to that which Darrell Issa claimed, which was that Washington deliberately held up applications of Tea-Party groups. It has come out that two-thirds of the applications that received extra scrutiny were in fact progressive groups.

This transcript release only indicates that the witness was totally unaware of that the terms "Tea-Party," "patriots" or "9-12 project" were even political, further eroding the accusation that the delays in approving applications was political at all.

June 17, 2013 at 9:21 a.m.
jjmez said...

re: Nothing in this new release of information points to that which Darrell Issa claimed, which was that Washington deliberately held up applications of Tea-Party groups


Darrel Issa has also been accused of refusing to release critical information from their investigation that would possible explain and justify why those groups filing under 501(C)(4) status caught the attention of the IRS in the first place. Issa's goal was to have it all traced back to the White House in the long trailing effort and determination to get the president impeached. All their efforts thus far has only backfired on them.

Remember, the plan was to first make sure President Obama was a one time president. Went that didn't work a new strategy had to be devised. The plan also was to overthrow OBAMA'S government by any means necessary. This discussion, to overthrow "OBAMA'S" government was posted openly on discussion forums even locally.

June 17, 2013 at 12:28 p.m.
patriot1 said...

mtn laurel says..."For starters, every adult citizen in America is entitled to one vote"

That sounds good, but how did you arrive at that?

June 17, 2013 at 12:54 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Patriot1 says: "That sounds good, but how did you arrive at that?"

Revealing response, Patriot1. . . So tell us, how many times did you try to vote for Romney?

June 17, 2013 at 1:21 p.m.
alprova said...

Don't you just hate to have to drag out of people, what it is that they are trying to say?

June 17, 2013 at 1:46 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

jjmez said...

Lerner only refused to answer questions because of the threat of prosecution. Which anyone except the extreme naïve would have done the same.


She was wise to do so as prosecution may certainly await her.

However she did so ignorantly, in a way that will deny her the right to not answer the questions next time.


You forget, it was the type of tax exempt status so many Tea Partiers tried to file under that raised the red flag with the IRS. 501(c)(4).


No, the IRS has already admitted that those groups were targeted due to the fact their names indicated they were conservative groups which such action is a violation of the law.

June 17, 2013 at 2:19 p.m.
alprova said...

JT wrote: "No, the IRS has already admitted that those groups were targeted due to the fact their names indicated they were conservative groups which such action is a violation of the law."

There has been no such admission. There is no law against scrutinizing names that are suspected to have political ties when applying for tax-exempt status as a 501c(4).

If you disagree, which I am sure that you will, then cite the law that was violated by the IRS. The IRS was absolutely doing their job in assuring that the agenda of those groups was not excessively political in nature.

I repeat for the third time, the charge that Tea-Party groups were intentionally targeted is falling apart, as it was revealed that two thirds of the applications approved by the IRS during the time frame established were conservative in nature.

Not one conservative group had their application rejected, and there are still some being evaluated.

Give up the ghost. This scandal is not going anywhere either.

June 17, 2013 at 2:29 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

alprova said...

Don't you just hate to have to drag out of people, what it is that they are trying to say?


I know what you mean.

mountainlaurel’s statement “every adult citizen in America is entitled to one vote”, as she stated it, is technically incorrect. She provides no additional qualification, to possibly make it correct, as to leave it without any real meaning.

I can understand patriot1’s frustration in trying to understand her point and needing to ask for clarification.

June 17, 2013 at 2:30 p.m.
alprova said...

JT wrote: "mountainlaurel’s statement “every adult citizen in America is entitled to one vote”, as she stated it, is technically incorrect."

But of course. It's your job to jump on anything that may be presented "technically incorrect."

Do you ever wonder why it is that people are loathe to discuss anything with you?

"She provides no additional qualification, to possibly make it correct, as to leave it without any real meaning."

I understood what it was that she was implying, without an ounce of difficulty. You're still trollin' people's comments...Babe.

If you were half as informed as you thought you were, you might win a point every now and then, but you Ma'am appear to be educated beyond your own intelligence.

June 17, 2013 at 2:36 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

alprova said... JT wrote: "No, the IRS has already admitted that those groups were targeted due to the fact their names indicated they were conservative groups which such action is a violation of the law."

There has been no such admission. (Yes there has)

There is no law against scrutinizing names that are suspected to have political ties when applying for tax-exempt status as a 501c(4). (yes there is)

If you disagree, which I am sure that you will, then cite the law that was violated by the IRS. (See below for examples)

I repeat for the third time, the charge that Tea-Party groups were intentionally targeted is falling apart, as it was revealed that two thirds of the applications approved by the IRS during the time frame established were conservative in nature. (describe your time period and you definition of “conservative in nature”)

Not one conservative group had their application rejected, and there are still some being evaluated. (Then why the 27 month holdup?)

From USA Today:

In the 27 months that the Internal Revenue Service put a hold on all Tea Party applications for non-profit status, it approved applications from similar liberal groups, a USA TODAY review of IRS data shows.

As applications from conservative groups sat in limbo, groups with obviously liberal names were approved in as little as nine months. With names including words like "Progress" or "Progressive," these groups applied for the same tax status and were engaged in the same kinds of activities as the conservative groups.

A federal official who has been briefed on the matter said the investigation could focus on potential violations of civil rights law, including targeting groups based on political affiliation and infringing free speech. The official, who is not authorized to comment publicly, said authorities could consider possible violations of the Hatch Act, which restricts political activities of government workers.

The IRS inspector general, in an audit issued Tuesday, said the agency used "inappropriate criteria that identified Tea Party and other organizations applying for tax-exempt status based upon their names or policy positions" instead of evidence of political activity.

June 17, 2013 at 2:56 p.m.
alprova said...

Sorry dear. Quoting a USA Today article that obviously was written a month ago is not proof that any law was violated.

Cite the specific law(s) that were violated. You're smart enough to figure out how to read coded law, aren't you?

It is the duty of the IRS to delve into whether or not those groups were engaged in political activity, and the names of those groups were the first clue that they might be.

You can argue that it raised red flags before they were supposed to be raised, and there is now evidence to suggest that there were some very inept agents doing those evaluations, but there was absolutely no law whatsoever broken, and those delays are proving to be totally unintentional.

Here's my evidence. Where is yours?

http://www.taxanalysts.com/www/features.nsf/Articles/D2A6C735EAFA7A9085257B7B004C0D90

June 17, 2013 at 3:04 p.m.
jjmez said...

No, the IRS has already admitted that those groups were targeted due to the fact their names indicated they were conservative groups which such action is a violation of the law.


Not really, upon closer scrutiny and more detailed investigation: They came under scrutiny not because they were conservative groups, but because so many of those claiming conservative and using terms such as Tea Party, Patriots etc. were attempting to file under the 501(c)(4) status that raised a red flag. Remember the only one organization denied 501(c(4) exemption was actually a liberal group.

June 17, 2013 at 3:09 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

jjmez said...

Jt said ...No, the IRS has already admitted that those groups were targeted due to the fact their names indicated they were conservative groups which such action is a violation of the law.”

Not really, upon closer scrutiny and more detailed investigation: They came under scrutiny not because they were conservative” groups, but because so many of those claiming conservative and using terms such as Tea Party, Patriots etc. were attempting to file under the 501(c)(4) status that raised a red flag. Remember the only one organization denied 501(c(4) exemption was actually a liberal group.


Give us some of that detailed investigation and closer scrutiny if you will.

How does the number of applicants of a certain group and their identifiers justify targeting when other groups of a preferred ideology are passed without such targeting.

The group(s) you indicated that lost their exemption were clearly violating the law as they were selecting, training and running candidates in elections. They didn’t even try to hide their violations because they probably felt they were of the correct flavor to pass.

June 17, 2013 at 3:38 p.m.
patriot1 said...

mtnlaurel....please tell me more about how everyone is ENTITLED to vote.

June 17, 2013 at 3:41 p.m.
Easy123 said...

patriette1,

"Entitle: To furnish with a right or claim to something."

Every adult citizen is furnished with a right or claim to vote.

See the 14th, 15th, 19th, and 26th Amendments of the United States Constitution.


Please tell me more about your idiocy.

June 17, 2013 at 4:13 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

alprova said ...

This transcript release only indicates that the witness was totally unaware of that the terms "Tea-Party," "patriots" or "9-12 project" were even political, further eroding the accusation that the delays in approving applications was political at all.


And you bought that?

If true, should a person that unaware be trusted to be an employee at the IRS much less a position of authority? Maybe that’s why they though they could get away with this routine.

June 17, 2013 at 4:27 p.m.
alprova said...

JT wrote: "And you bought that?"

Hey...she swore to tell the truth and that is her truth.

"If true, should a person that unaware be trusted to be an employee at the IRS much less a position of authority? Maybe that’s why they though they could get away with this routine."

Ma'am, the only proof to what went on is contained in the testimony. It's certainly not my fault that the testimony is not living up to the claims that Darrell Issa promised it would.

The IRS is making these fist-pounding Republicans look like boobs of the highest order.

June 17, 2013 at 4:49 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

Easy123 said...

"Entitle: To furnish with a right or claim to something."

Every adult citizen is furnished with a right or claim to vote. See the 14th, 15th, 19th, and 26th Amendments of the United States Constitution.


No one has a Constitutional right to vote but only that you be permitted “equal access” to the polls to vote. There is a difference.

I think the original point was that every adult is entitled to a vote, without qualifications, which is not true.

June 17, 2013 at 4:57 p.m.
Easy123 said...

jt6_quoque,

"No one has a Constitutional right to vote but only that you be permitted “equal access” to the polls to vote. There is a difference."

Wrong. Every adult citizen has a Constitutional right to vote. The phrase "right to vote" or some derivative of that phrase is mentioned five times in Amendments 11-27.

What you're saying is unequivocally incorrect.

"I think the original point was that every adult is entitled to a vote, without qualifications, which is not true."

Actually, you're wrong. Every citizen over the age of 18 years old is entitled (furnished with the right) to vote regardless of sex, race, or color. That's the way it works.

Again, see the 14th, 15th, 19th, and 26th Amendments of the United States Constitution. For further proof, see the Voting Rights Act.

June 17, 2013 at 5:18 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

mountainlaurel said ...

Each citizen has equal power. In other words, one citizen’s vote doesn’t have any more influence than another citizen’s vote.


From the NYT:

With the exception of the Senate, where voters from states with small populations have vastly more power than those from, say, California or Texas, the rest of the American political system is committed to the bedrock principle of “one person one vote.”

Whatever else may be said about the odd shapes of voting districts around the nation, they do tend to contain, often with exquisite mathematical precision, the same number of people. But not all of those people are eligible to vote.

The distinction matters in places like Irving, Tex., where the City Council’s six districts have almost exactly the same number of people. But one of them, heavily Hispanic, has only about half the number of people actually entitled to vote. The political power of voters in that district is therefore amplified. Think of it as “one person two votes.”

Voters from the other districts sued to challenge this state of affairs, and the Supreme Court is scheduled to decide next week whether to hear their case. Surprisingly, the court has never resolved the question of whether “one person one vote” means that voting districts should contain the same number of people or, instead, the same number of voters.

June 17, 2013 at 5:26 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

Easy123 said ...

Wrong. Every adult citizen has a Constitutional right to vote. The phrase "right to vote" or some derivative of that phrase is mentioned five times in Amendments 11-27.

What you're saying is unequivocally incorrect.

Actually, you're wrong. Every citizen [ every one? there are no exceptions?] over the age of 18 years old is entitled (furnished with the right) to vote regardless of sex, race, or color. That's the way it works.

Again, see the 14th, 15th, 19th, and 26th Amendments of the United States Constitution. For further proof, see the Voting Rights Act.


I think I will go with these people until you learn the law and most likely even then

From Politifacts:

-- Keyssar, author of The Right to Vote: The Contested History of Democracy in the United States, told us: "The basic fact is there is no affirmative right to vote in the U.S. Constitution. Never was."

-- FairVote, which seeks to reform elections, says that while constitutional amendments prohibit discrimination based on race, sex and age, "no affirmative right to vote exists."

-- In a 2012 piece for Salon.com, Yale law professor Heather Gerken wrote: "The Constitution does not guarantee Americans the right to vote. That always comes as a surprise to non-lawyers."

-- In 2006, University of Baltimore law professor Garrett Epps, critical of photo ID requirements, made almost the same statement Pocan did, saying: "The U.S. Constitution does not explicitly guarantee a right to vote."

June 17, 2013 at 6:10 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Patriot1 says: "Please tell me more about how everyone is ENTITLED to vote."

Since you the original discussion that I was having with Jt6 was about votes, disclosure, and campaign contributions, I believe you’re being disingenuous here, Patriot1. If you had read Jt6's post you would have noted that he was arguing that "votes" and "campaigns contributions" were essentially equivalent and should be treated the same in regard to disclosure. I was simply pointing out to him the difference between the two and why his argument didn't fly.

June 17, 2013 at 6:10 p.m.
patriot1 said...

The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College. U.S. Const., Art. II, §1.

Easyette....this is from the Bush vs. Gore ruling by the Supreme Court. You may not be old enough to remember that, but since you appear to have awesome google skills, perhaps you can read up before you start using that "idiot" term....makes you look...well I won't say it.

June 17, 2013 at 6:17 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

alprova said ...

It has come out that two-thirds of the applications that received extra scrutiny were in fact progressive groups.


From your link to Tax Analysts:

Martin A. Sullivan reviews some IRS data on tax exemption applications that were subjected to extra review and finds that a substantial minority were from non-conservative groups.

June 17, 2013 at 6:19 p.m.
fairmon said...

ml post from her fav publication the NYT...

With the exception of the Senate, where voters from states with small populations have vastly more power than those from, say, California or Texas, the rest of the American political system is committed to the bedrock principle of “one person one vote.”

It is still one vote per person. The smaller population states don't have more power than larger states, be thankful someone had the foresight to see the need for this balance to keep those smaller states from being dictated to by the larger. The house does not have such balance. I agree ML it is nobodies business who I voter for, it is a secret ballot for good reason. However, I believe everyone has the right to know by individual name who donated how much to who.

It is very doable but the incumbents of either party want to fix the government for sale process.

June 17, 2013 at 6:22 p.m.
Easy123 said...

jt6_quoque,

"I think I will go with these people until you learn the law and most likely even"

That is not the law as it is written. Any time a State legislature purges votes or disenfranchises certain groups, that is outside the the direct and stated implication of the Constitution of the United States of America.

Using the arguments about the Constitution not explicitly stating there is a right to vote does not mean that the right does not exist. That right is alluded to several times in the Amendments I've mentioned above.

June 17, 2013 at 6:29 p.m.
jjmez said...

jt6 said: How does the number of applicants of a certain group and their identifiers justify targeting when other groups of a preferred ideology are passed without such targeting.


It was the impression you were a mature individual, the above statement proves otherwise. The fact, jt6, isn't that groups were targeted because they claim to be conservatives, but so many attempting to file tax exempt status under a certain heading and using names such as Patriots, Tea Party. Where the IRS was flooded with applications from groups cropping up claiming those titles for 501(c)(4) tax exempt status.

The same red flag would have gone up for anyone overwhelmingly using certain titles, regardless if they claimed to be conservative, liberal, or purple aliens with polka dots from outer space.

June 17, 2013 at 6:31 p.m.
Easy123 said...

patriette1,

"The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College. U.S. Const., Art. II, §1."

Did you forget to read this part?

"...unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election.."**

That means such a right does exist given that a state organizes an election.

"Easyette....this is from the Bush vs. Gore ruling by the Supreme Court."

And, apparently, you didn't read it.

"You may not be old enough to remember that, but since you appear to have awesome google skills, perhaps you can read up before you start using that "idiot" term....makes you look...well I won't say it."

Considering the quote you provided supports my claim directly, I'd say you've got that "idiot" term locked down pretty tightly. You may not be old enough to read with comprehension, but you should give it shot next time you're Googling.

But I wouldn't expect anything less from you, you're the dunce that thinks oil is solar energy.

June 17, 2013 at 6:32 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

mountainlaurel said ...

If you had read Jt6's post you would have noted that he was arguing that "votes" and "campaigns contributions" were essentially equivalent and should be treated the same in regard to disclosure.


You do not have a Constitutional right to vote but you do have a Constitutional right to equal access to the polls.You also have a Constitutional right to freedom of expression.

The expenditure of your own resources to influence elections is considered, by the SCOTUS, to be expression but of course no right is absolute without "reasonable" regulation.

The fact that these are both very critical rights then yes they are equivalent and not just essentially so.

June 17, 2013 at 6:34 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Fairmon says: "ml post from her fav publication the NYT."

How does this pertain to the discussion about votes, disclosures, and political contributions, Fairmon? It seems to me your NYT's article is addressing a totally different issue.

June 17, 2013 at 6:35 p.m.
Easy123 said...

jt6_quoque,

"You do not have a Constitutional right to vote"

You're still wrong.

June 17, 2013 at 6:40 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

jjmez said...

The fact, jt6, isn't that groups were targeted because they claim to be conservatives (of course they were and the IRS has admitted as much)

but so many attempting to file tax exempt status under a certain heading (why would the number of application result in targeting certain groups and others)

and using names such as Patriots, Tea Party. (so you’re admitting that they were targeted due to the perception of what their politics were)

Where the IRS was flooded with applications from groups cropping up claiming those titles for 501(c)(4) tax exempt status.The same red flag would have gone up for anyone overwhelmingly using certain titles, regardless if they claimed to be conservative, liberal, or purple aliens with polka dots from outer space. (But of course the “liberal, or purple aliens with polka dots from outer space” weren’t targeted due to any perceived political viewpoint ... Were they?)

June 17, 2013 at 6:44 p.m.
rick1 said...

You do not have a right to vote in a Federal Election. As long as States do not violate 14th, 15th, 19th, and 26th Amendments States can enact laws, which prevent people from voting, such as convicted felons.

Alabama - Some persons convicted of a felony may apply to have their vote restored immediately upon completion of their full sentence. Those convicted of certain felony offenses such as murder, rape, incest, sexual crime against children, and treason are not eligible for re-enfranchisement.

Delaware - On April 16, 2013 the Delaware Senate passed the Hazel D. Plant Voter Restoration Act in a 15-6 vote. The act amended the Delaware Constitution by removing the five year waiting period for most felons to regain the ability to vote. Persons convicted of a felony (with some exceptions) are now automatically eligible to vote after serving their full sentence including incarceration, parole, and probation.

Exceptions: Persons convicted of murder or manslaughter, a felony offense against public administration involving bribery, improper influence or abuse of office, or a felony sexual offense, remain permanently disqualified from voting.

Kentucky - The ability to vote can be restored only when the Governor approves an application for an executive pardon from an individual convicted of a felony after completion of his/her sentence.

Tennessee - All persons convicted of a felony since 1981, except for some serious felonies such as murder, rape, treason and voter fraud, may apply to the Board of Probation and Parole for voting restoration upon completion of their sentence.

http://felonvoting.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=286

June 17, 2013 at 6:47 p.m.
Easy123 said...

jt6_quoque,

From Politifacts:

Judith Best, distinguished teaching professor of political science at State University of New York-Cortland, told us the key phrase in Pocan’s claim is "explicitly guarantees."

"It seems clear to me that the obvious intent" of the Constitution, she said, "is that the people are to choose their governments -- their representatives."

Similarly, Roger Pilon at the libertarian Cato Institute -- who doubts Pocan’s amendment would have much impact, if adopted -- told us that amendments to the Constitution make it clear there is a right to vote.

"It’s so implicit as to be all but explicit," he said.

But intending or implying aren’t quite the same as an explicit guarantee. And in Pocan's opinion, an explicit guarantee would make it more difficult to put restrictions on voting.

We’ll leave the final word to scholar Hans von Spakovsky of the conservative Heritage Foundation and author of Who’s Counting?: How Fraudsters and Bureaucrats Put Your Vote at Risk.

"It is correct that there is not an explicit provision in the Constitution guaranteeing the right to vote," he said, "but several amendments guarantee the right to vote at age 18, free of racial discrimination, and protected by the Equal Protection doctrine."

June 17, 2013 at 6:50 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

Jt: Don't argue with Easy. He's an L-1 at an online law school.

June 17, 2013 at 6:52 p.m.
Easy123 said...

rick1,

"You do not have a right to vote in a Federal Election."

Yes, you do. Felons can be re-enfranchised. It's hard to vote from prison.

June 17, 2013 at 6:52 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

Easy123 said ...

Any time a State legislature purges votes or disenfranchises certain groups, that is outside the the direct and stated implication of the Constitution of the United States of America.


It is perfectly legal for states to purge the voter rolls or disenfranchises certain groups. It is when they do so incorrectly that they run afoul of the Constitution.

June 17, 2013 at 6:54 p.m.
Easy123 said...

PlainJackoff,

"Jt: Don't argue with Easy. He's an L-1 at an online law school."

How will I ever recover from that tremendous insult?

Any more zingers, coffindodger?

June 17, 2013 at 6:56 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Jt6gR3hM said: "The expenditure of your own resources to influence elections is considered, by the SCOTUS, to be expression but of course no right is absolute without "reasonable" regulation."

Why can’t you just admit it and say it in a straightforward manner, Jt6? The Supreme Court upheld the requirements for disclaimers and disclosures. Even the right wingers on the Supreme Court recognized the impact that unlimited corporate contributions could have on elections and the need of the public to discuss and take all of the outrageous campaign spending into account when voting. . . In other words, no big secret contributions.

June 17, 2013 at 6:57 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

Easy123 said...

Felons can be re-enfranchised. It's hard to vote from prison.


It wouldn't be logistically difficult to have a voter polling station in a prison and is not the reason they are disenfranchised.

June 17, 2013 at 6:59 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Jt6_quoque,

"It is perfectly legal for states to purge the voter rolls or disenfranchises certain groups."

It isn't though. That's why Federal Courts and the DOJ are blocking many of the new voting laws.

"It is when they do so incorrectly that they run afoul of the Constitution."

How does one "purge voter rolls or disenfranchise certain groups" correctly/incorrectly?

June 17, 2013 at 7 p.m.
Easy123 said...

jt6_quoque,

"It wouldn't be logistically difficult to have a voter polling station in a prison"

It would be logistically difficult to have a voter polling station in all 4,575 prisons. Does their vote count towards the state they are in or the state they were living in before incarceration? You see where I'm going with this.

"and is not the reason they are disenfranchised."

I never said that was the reason they are disenfranchised.

June 17, 2013 at 7:01 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

mountainlaurel said...

Jt6gR3hM said: "The expenditure of your own resources to influence elections is considered, by the SCOTUS, to be expression but of course no right is absolute without "reasonable" regulation."

Why can’t you just admit it and say it in a straightforward manner, Jt6? The Supreme Court upheld the requirements for disclaimers and disclosures. Even the right wingers on the Supreme Court recognized the impact that unlimited corporate contributions could have on elections and the need of the public to discuss and take all of the outrageous campaign spending into account when voting. . . In other words, no big secret contributions.


That has to do with contributions directly to candidates and not independent expenditures. If what you say is true then the 501 (c) 4 organizations would not exist. As long as you do not coordinate your activities with a candidate you can spend unlimited amounts for independent campaign activity.

June 17, 2013 at 7:06 p.m.
rick1 said...

Easy, read what I posted, below is a list from States, which has exceptions where felons will not be eligible to be re-enfranchised.

Alabama Those convicted of certain felony offenses such as murder, rape, incest, sexual crime against children, and treason are not eligible for re-enfranchisement.

Delaware: EXCEPTIONS: Persons convicted of murder or manslaughter, a felony offense against public administration involving bribery, improper influence or abuse of office, or a felony sexual offense, remain permanently disqualified from voting.

Tennessee All persons convicted of a felony since 1981, EXCEPT for some serious felonies such as murder, rape, treason and voter fraud, may apply to the Board of Probation and Parole for voting restoration upon completion of their sentence.

June 17, 2013 at 7:10 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

Easy123 ... It would be logistically difficult to have a voter polling station in all 4,575 prisons. Does their vote count towards the state they are in or the state they were previously living it? You see where I'm going with this.


The number of prisons and the specific area they would vote in is no more problem than absentee ballots offer at the present. You see where I'm going with this.


I never said that was the reason they are disenfranchised.


You didn't make it "explicit" but did imply it.

June 17, 2013 at 7:15 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

Easy123 said ...

How does one "purge voter rolls or disenfranchise certain groups" correctly/incorrectly?


Dead people and felons.

June 17, 2013 at 7:18 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Jt6gR3hM said: "If what you say is true then the 501 (c) 4 organizations would not exist. As long as you do not coordinate your activities with a candidate you can spend unlimited amounts for independent campaign activity."

Which brings us right back to the issue in the cartoon. The 501 (c) 4 was not set up to be a front for political slush funds. Currently, it is being blatantly abuse by political groups and corporations in an effort to conceal their campaign contributions from the public.

And as I said earlier, I find it odd these Tea Party folks haven’t uttered a peep about the blatant abuse of the 501 (c) 4 status. It seems to me if one is concerned about the wrongs that can occur within big government, one should be equally concerned about the wrongs that can occur within big corporations. In this case, it would be these big corporate lobbyists and operatives who are setting up these illegal political slush funds to conceal money in political campaigns.

"Since the Citizens United decision, 501(c)(4) groups, have operated as Super PACs—raising and spending tens of millions in corporate funds—without disclosing a dime of their contributors. IRS rules state that the primary activity of such groups cannot relate to political advocacy, yet examples abound of 501(c)(4) groups spending well over 50 percent of their funds on attack ads, political action committees and other clearly political expenses. These potential violations of the law have gone on for several years now, with very little interest from the Beltway media or Capitol Hill Republicans, many of whom owe their election to spending by bogus 501(c)(4) organizations."

Read more: Five 501(c)(4) Groups That Might Have Broken the Law | The Nation http://www.thenation.com/blog/174458/five-501c4-groups-might-have-broken-law#ixzz2WNpT7eIo

June 17, 2013 at 7:20 p.m.
Easy123 said...

jt6_quoque,

"The number of prisons and the specific area they would vote in is no more problem than absentee ballots present at present."

So are you setting up a voter polling station or just giving all of the prisoners an absentee ballot? Which state would they vote in? Are they required to vote?

"You see where I'm going with this."

You have no clue where you are going with it. You just like to see words typed under your screen name.

"You didn't make it "explicit" but did imply it."

I made no implication whatsoever.

Try again.

June 17, 2013 at 7:22 p.m.
Easy123 said...

jt6_quoque,

"Dead people and felons."

Dead people are physically incapable of casting a vote. And some felons can be re-enfranchised.

Any other purging of voters or disenfranchising certain groups would likely be challenged by a court or the DOJ.

June 17, 2013 at 7:26 p.m.
Easy123 said...

rick1,

"Easy, read what I posted, below is a list from States, which has exceptions where felons will not be eligible to be re-enfranchised."

I read it. And that is to be expected for serious felons considering they lose the most rights through a lengthy sentence.

June 17, 2013 at 7:28 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

Easy123 said ...

So are you setting up a voter polling station or just giving all of the prisoners an absentee ballot?

(Since the prisoners do not have privacy you would need a secure and private way for them to mark their ballots. You are welcome to name this location as you please)

Which state would they vote in?

(Whichever state, county, or city wanted to allow them to vote is O.K. with me)

Are they required to vote?

(Why would they be as that would violate their rights)

June 17, 2013 at 7:32 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

Easy123 said ...

Any other purging of voters or disenfranchising certain groups would likely be challenged by a court or the DOJ.


I don’t think I even implied that there would be any others so I guess I was correct about it being legal to purge voter rolls and disenfranchise a certain group.

June 17, 2013 at 7:36 p.m.
Easy123 said...

jt6_quoque,

"Since the prisoners do not have privacy you would need a secure and private way for them to mark their ballots."

So which is it? Prison polling station or absentee ballot?

"You are welcome to name this location as you please"

I asked you the question.

"Whichever state, county, or city wanted to allow them to vote is O.K. with me"

It's your scenario. Why so vague now? LMFAO!

"Why would they be as that would violate their rights"

What rights? Didn't the lose the majority of those given their felony conviction? That life, liberty and pursuit of happiness went out the window.

You've successfully typed absolutely nothing of substance.

June 17, 2013 at 7:37 p.m.
Easy123 said...

jt6_quoque,

"I don’t think I even implied that there would be any others"

The ones you mentioned weren't even applicable.

"so I guess I was correct about it being legal to purge voter rolls and disenfranchise a certain group."

You guess wrong considering I've rebuffed that claim several times and debunked your examples as well.

Try again.

June 17, 2013 at 7:39 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

Easy123 said ...

Dead people are physically incapable of casting a vote.


I’ve heard that they are the most reliable Democratic voting group.

June 17, 2013 at 7:39 p.m.
Easy123 said...

jt6_quoque,

"I’ve heard that they are the most reliable Democratic voting group."

That's because you've been suckling that WingNut Propaganda teat. Lies and misinformation does not a sound argument make.

June 17, 2013 at 7:40 p.m.
rick1 said...

Easy, posted I read it. And that is to be expected for serious felons considering they lose the most rights through a lengthy sentence.

In Delaware some of the exceptions for not re-enfranchised include felony offense against public administration involving bribery, improper influence or abuse of office. These offenses do not carry as long of a sentence as murder. Also sex offenders are known to get out of prison after only serving a few years.

My comment that you do not have a right to vote in a Federal Election, is in fact correct and your response "Yes, you do. Felons can be re-enfranchised, is in fact incorrect.

June 17, 2013 at 7:43 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

Easy123 said ...

The ones you mentioned weren't even applicable.

You guess wrong considering I've rebuffed that claim several times and debunked your examples as well.


Now you’ve just slipped into just being silly and it’s the point that adults tell the children to go out and play.

Go out and play.

June 17, 2013 at 7:45 p.m.
alprova said...

PT wrote: "Jt: Don't argue with Easy. He's an L-1 at an online law school."

Wherever Easy gets his education, which does appear to be extensive, he is 100% correct on this one.

Like it or not, the Constitutional Amendments refer five times to a right to vote. Any argument offered that this right is only extended IF states hold statewide elections is a rather moot point, since it appears that all states have held statewide elections for at least the last 150 years, if not longer.

June 17, 2013 at 7:54 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

mountainlaurel said ...

The 501 (c) 4 was not set up to be a front for political slush funds. Currently, it is being blatantly abuse by political groups and corporations in an effort to conceal their campaign contributions from the public.


Why am I not surprised that the article you linked to, from the Nation magazine, only provided Republican examples. Considering that liberals like to point out that the only group, that was violating the law so egregiously as to have their exemption terminate, was a progressive one.

June 17, 2013 at 7:56 p.m.
alprova said...

JT wrote: "It is perfectly legal for states to purge the voter rolls or disenfranchises certain groups."

Would you be so kind as to give some examples of "groups" that it is perfectly legal to purge or to disenfranchise from the voter rolls?

June 17, 2013 at 8 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

alprova said ...

Like it or not, the Constitutional Amendments refer five times to a right to vote. Any argument offered that this right is only extended IF states hold statewide elections is a rather moot point, since it appears that all states have held statewide elections for at least the last 150 years, if not longer.


If states reversed themselves would you have a valid claim that your Constitutional rights are being violated? If not did you really have that right to start with?

June 17, 2013 at 8 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

alprova said ...

Would you be so kind as to give some examples of "groups" that it is perfectly legal to purge or to disenfranchise from the voter rolls?


I'm fairly sure I have already been kind enough.

June 17, 2013 at 8:02 p.m.
alprova said...

JT wrote: "If states reversed themselves would you have a valid claim that your Constitutional rights are being violated? If not did you really have that right to start with?"

If the day ever comes that any state refuses to hold a statewide election, then get back to me. Until then, voters that meet the qualifications in their state of residence, have a RIGHT to appear at an assigned polling location and a very reasonable expectation that they will be allowed to cast their votes.

You just love to argue hypothetical scenarios all the time.

June 17, 2013 at 8:13 p.m.
alprova said...

JT wrote: "I'm fairly sure I have already been kind enough."

Yeah, I guess you were, but you offered the loaded statement as if there was more on your mind.

Maybe one day you will surprise me.

June 17, 2013 at 8:16 p.m.
Easy123 said...

rick1,

"My comment that you do not have a right to vote in a Federal Election, is in fact correct and your response "Yes, you do. Felons can be re-enfranchised, is in fact incorrect."

You're still wrong. I've already explained why.

June 17, 2013 at 8:36 p.m.
Easy123 said...

jt6_quoque,

"Now you’ve just slipped into just being silly and it’s the point that adults tell the children to go out and play."

I would say the same to you, but that would be an insult to most children.

"Go out and play."

Your rebuttal is severely lacking.

June 17, 2013 at 8:38 p.m.
rick1 said...

Easy, there are convicted felons in Tennessee who are out of prison that were convicted of murder, and rape and that have not done lengthy prison sentences and they will never have their rights to vote reinstated to vote in a Federal Election unless the State of Tennessee changes the law.

States can impose restrictions and not allow people to vote in Federal Elections as long as they do not violate the 14th, 15th, 19th, and 26th Amendments. These restrictions can be temporary where felons can apply to have their rights restored after completing their full sentence, to not having their rights restored at all even after they have completed there full sentence.

You should have learned this in your Constitutional Law class but I have to question if you really are attending Law School or are you just that arrogant that you can not admit when you are wrong.

June 17, 2013 at 9:11 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

Rick1: I would go with arrogance first, then the mythical law school.

June 17, 2013 at 9:18 p.m.
Easy123 said...

rick1,

"Easy, there are convicted felons in Tennessee who are out of prison that were convicted of murder, and rape and that have not done lengthy prison sentences and they will never have their rights to vote reinstated to vote in a Federal Election unless the State of Tennessee changes the law."

And? You just said it yourself: "rights to vote". Is voting a right or not? Your whole felony argument was used to support your "you don't have a right to vote" claim. Yet, you just contradicted yourself with your own words.

No one is denying the fact that some felons cannot vote ever again.

"States can impose restrictions and not allow people to vote in Federal Elections as long as they do not violate the 14th, 15th, 19th, and 26th Amendments."

Name one such restriction that falls outside of those Amendments. Your felony example doesn't exactly count since felons lose nearly all their Constitutional rights once they are convicted and some are never "returned" to them after their incarceration is over.

"These restrictions can be temporary where felons can apply to have their rights restored after completing their full sentence, to not having their rights restored at all even after they have completed there full sentence."

Felons lose a lot of rights during and after they are incarcerated. Why do you feel that this proves your point that you don't have a right to vote? Felons losing the right to vote is one of many rights they lose. If you don't have a right to vote, then what rights are being restored?

How does a felon lose the right to vote when, according to you, they never had that right in the first place?

"You should have learned this in your Constitutional Law class but I have to question if you really are attending Law School or are you just that arrogant that you can not admit when you are wrong."

Learned what? That some felons aren't allowed to vote ever again? I knew that already. I haven't disputed that irrelevant fact. I'm simply stating that that fact doesn't prove your claim that people do not have a right to vote.

Also, I wasn't wrong about anything. You are the one that is wrong and, apparently, confused. I have to question if you're really capable of understanding very simple, concise statements or are you arrogant, idiotic enough to believe some felons losing their right to vote somehow proves your point that you do not have a right to vote?

You've referred to the "right to vote" several times in this post alone. So which is it? Is it a right or not? Do felons lose that right or not?

June 17, 2013 at 9:33 p.m.
Easy123 said...

PlainJackoff,

"Rick1: I would go with arrogance first, then the mythical law school."

Your jealousy amuses me.

June 17, 2013 at 9:39 p.m.
rick1 said...

I admit I did not word my post properly when I said having their right to vote reinstated. Felons did not lose their right to vote because no one has the right to vote in a federal election as along as the 14th, 15th, 19th, and 26th Amendments are not violated.

You posted "Learned what? That some felons aren't allowed to vote ever? I knew that already."

So you are admitting there are some felons, which include those who are out of prison that will never be re-established to vote?

June 17, 2013 at 9:55 p.m.
dude_abides said...

Every time Rebus burps an opinion I get this vision of his triple, bearded chin getting stuck as his head tries to erupt from his Whac-A-Mole hole, which in turn causes his head to nod with each word, like the Canadians on South Park.

June 17, 2013 at 10 p.m.
Easy123 said...

rick1,

"Felons did not lose their right to vote because no one has the right to vote in a federal election as along as the 14th, 15th, 19th, and 26th Amendments are not violated."

You're wrong. It's that simple.

"So you are admitting there are some felons, which include those who are out of prison that will never be re-established to vote?"

When did I ever deny that? You simply don't understand that that fact is absolutely irrelevant to your claim that no one has the right to vote in a federal election.

Losing your rights is built in to being a felon. Once you are convicted of a felony, you give up most of you rights. The fact you are trying to push as proof of your claim does not serve as any sort of affirmation whatsoever.

American citizens over the age of 18 do, in fact, have a right to vote in Federal, State and local elections.

June 17, 2013 at 10:02 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

Dud_abides: Southpark? Says plenty about you, trough-pig.

June 17, 2013 at 10:05 p.m.
Easy123 said...

PlainJackoff,

The fact that you are a "trough-pig" and you have the audacity to refer to anyone else by that name is highly ironic.

You feed from the public trough. When you refer to anyone else as a "trough-pig", waddle your little pork cutlets over to a mirror and oink till you puke.

Come to think of it, I thought I smelled bacon after a few of those "bitch-slaps" and now I know why. Come back for more if you're feeling porky, you geriatric, "47 percent" "taker".

June 17, 2013 at 10:09 p.m.
rick1 said...

Easy, if voting is a right then why was Jessie Jackson Jr. in 2005 trying to A Proposed Amendment to Establish a Constitutional Right to Vote in America?

http://reclaimdemocracy.org/amendment_constitutional_voting_right/

http://reclaimdemocracy.org/right_to_vote/

June 17, 2013 at 10:28 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

Hey Easy-punk. Name that law school!

June 17, 2013 at 10:31 p.m.
Easy123 said...

rick1,

"Easy, if voting is a right then why was Jessie Jackson Jr. in 2005 trying to A Proposed Amendment to Establish a Constitutional Right to Vote in America?"

Because there isn't a specific Amendment that explicitly ensures the right to vote. It is implicit throughout the Amendments I mentioned above though.

Anything else?

June 17, 2013 at 10:33 p.m.
Easy123 said...

PlainJackoff,

"Hey Easy-punk. Name that law school!"

Hey PlainMoron. Name that school!

You never told me what fine institution you received your "degree" from. That was the deal, remember?

LMFAO! Still waiting, you geriatric putz.

June 17, 2013 at 10:35 p.m.
rick1 said...

Nice try Easy. Earlier you were saying people had the right to vote.

June 17, 2013 at 10:48 p.m.
Easy123 said...

rick1,

"Nice try Easy. Earlier you were saying people had the right to vote. Why don't you show me where it says in the Bill of Rights or the entire Constitution where you have the right to vote."


Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Section 2:

"But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State."


Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Section 1:

"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."


Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution:

"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex."


Twenty-sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Section 1:

"The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age."


"Nice try Easy. Earlier you were saying people had the right to vote."

I never once said "people had the right to vote", liar.

Would you like to try one more time? You're fading fast.

June 17, 2013 at 10:55 p.m.
alprova said...

14th Amendment - "...But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime..."

15th Amendment - "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."

19th Amendment - "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex."

24th Amendment - "The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax."

26th Amendment - "The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age."

Five times. Not one passing remark that might have been a clerical error. The words could not be any clearer. So long as one has no criminal record, is a rebel, and continues to live and breathe, there is a written, implied right to vote in five Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America for each and every citizen, for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature.

June 17, 2013 at 10:56 p.m.
rick1 said...

Al and Easy, you need to accept the fact there is no right to vote.

In its 2000 ruling, Alexander v Mineta, the Court decided the 600,000 or so (mostly black) residents of Washington D.C. have no legal recourse for their complete lack of voting representation in Congress (they have one “representative” in the House who can speak, but cannot vote). The Court affirmed the district court’s interpretation that our Constitution “does not protect the right of all citizens to vote, but rather the right of all qualified citizens to vote.” And it’s state legislatures that wield the power to decide who is “qualified.”

As a result, voting is not a right, but a privilege granted or withheld at the discretion of local and state governments.

True, our Constitution explicitly prohibits discrimination in granting the franchise based on a person’s race, sex, or (adult) age via the 15th, 19th, and 26th Amendments. The24th Amendment also bars disenfranchisement via poll taxes.

Just months after the Alexander decision, a 5-4 Court majority in Bush v. Gore denied Florida citizens a right to ensure their votes were counted, saying “the individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote [for presidential electors].

http://reclaimdemocracy.org/right_to_vote/

June 17, 2013 at 11:01 p.m.
Easy123 said...

rick1,

"Al and Easy, you need to accept the fact there is no right to vote."

You need to accept that fact that you're still wrong.

"but rather the right of all qualified citizens to vote"

And the Amendments mentioned above keep states from disqualifying the overwhelming majority of people. Thus, you've just confirmed my point.

That quote from the Bush v. Gore decision is incomplete and misleading. Here is the full quote:

"The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College."

You've just provided two great examples that affirm the fact that there is a right to vote.

June 17, 2013 at 11:06 p.m.
alprova said...

rick1, you're a reasonable man.

How can you deny what is written in those five Amendments? They aren't mistakes or illusions. The wording in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution grants the states to deny the right to vote only in cases of a criminal conviction or rebellion, which is defined as: open, organized, and armed resistance to one's government.

The exact wording in those five Constitutional Amendments are as binding as the original body of the Constitution itself.

June 17, 2013 at 11:08 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

alprova said...

rock1 wrote: "Al, Harry Reid has refused to bring 15 House bills that dealt with jobs to the Senate floor for a vote."

According to the CBO, the percentage of jobs that those 15 bills would increase amounts to 0.4%, if that.


What is that ... 500,000 to 600,000 jobs?

I think it may be 30 or 40 bills by now and no telling the number of jobs they would produce but using the above 15 bills as an example we could be talking 1.5 to 2.0 million jobs.

But who cares ... It just those evil Republicans ... Right?

June 17, 2013 at 11:09 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

alprova said...

On Monday, Gibbs shot back, saying that Issa should make the interviews public if they exist or apologize to the IRS staffers for his charges.

"If he’s got information that these people lied, he should put it out there today," Gibbs said. "If he doesn't have information that they lied, then he should call each of them up personally and apologize, because this kind of discourse is why people lose confidence in their institutions."


This is still under investigation and there are new revelations every day. When the opportune moment arrives they will drop it on Obama and it won't be on a Friday afternoon.

If you want a real example of “why people lose confidence in their institutions” then the fact that Holder, our chief law enforcement official lied under oath is a prime example. That is much more damaging than the pointing out of the IRS’s and the Obama administration’s malfeasance in this debacle. Although that is way up there on the Holy $^%# list.

June 17, 2013 at 11:21 p.m.
rick1 said...

Al and Easy please show me the specific Amendment that states you have the right to vote. The 14th 15th 19th and 26th Amendments only deal with prohibiting States including the District of Columbia from excluding individuals from voting based on race or gender or people who are 18+ years of age without due process. And States are not allowed to impose a Poll Tax.

June 17, 2013 at 11:27 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

alprova said...

Sorry dear. Quoting a USA Today article that obviously was written a month ago is not proof that any law was violated.

(Is there a “use by date” on the truth?)

It is the duty of the IRS to delve into whether or not those groups were engaged in political activity, and the names of those groups were the first clue that they might be.

(That is political profiling by an extremely powerful government agency and the wiser Democrats realize they may be on the receiving end in the future. Even they want an example set to to bring the IRS back into line)

June 17, 2013 at 11:28 p.m.
alprova said...

rick1 wrote: "In its 2000 ruling, Alexander v Mineta, the Court decided the 600,000 or so (mostly black) residents of Washington D.C. have no legal recourse for their complete lack of voting representation in Congress (they have one “representative” in the House who can speak, but cannot vote)."

Sir...who is referring to Congressional representation? You're intentionally muddying the waters and addressing an issue that has not even been raised.

"The Court affirmed the district court’s interpretation that our Constitution “does not protect the right of all citizens to vote, but rather the right of all qualified citizens to vote.” And it’s state legislatures that wield the power to decide who is “qualified.”..."

Washington D.C. has not been made a state, yet.

The case you cite above had nothing to do with the right of individual citizens to vote.

It is uniform throughout the United States, in the year 2013, that all law abiding citizens over the age of 18, with no felony convictions in their past, are qualified to be extended the right to cast their votes in all 50 of their respective, statewide elections.

"As a result, voting is not a right, but a privilege granted or withheld at the discretion of local and state governments."

You Sir, are in complete denial of five references that clearly dictate that voting is a right, NOT to be taken away by the states, without lawful exception.

"Just months after the Alexander decision, a 5-4 Court majority in Bush v. Gore denied Florida citizens a right to ensure their votes were counted, saying “the individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote [for presidential electors]."

As unfortunate as that ruling was, and it was very unfortunate, the 14th Amendment specifically uses the words "right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President," so it appears that the ruling was an egregious error, although binding because it was handed down by the highest court in the land and we are to abide by it.

It was not the first time in history that the Supreme Court Justices made an error, and that one was a blatant and provable error.

June 17, 2013 at 11:29 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

alprova said...

JT wrote: "No, the IRS has already admitted that those groups were targeted due to the fact their names indicated they were conservative groups which such action is a violation of the law."

There has been no such admission.


From the link you claim as you proof for your views on this disaster:

We know now that the IRS used "inappropriate criteria" -- names and policy views associated with conservative and Tea Party causes -- for selecting applications for tax-exempt status for extra review. The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration laid out the charges in a May 14 report, and the IRS has admitted it made errors.

June 17, 2013 at 11:34 p.m.
dude_abides said...

Re-rebus, if necessity is the mother of invention, why haven't you developed "Neck Floss?" Bw... bwa... bwahahaha!

June 17, 2013 at 11:34 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

alprova said ...

Not one conservative group had their application rejected, and there are still some being evaluated.


That in itself proves that the IRS’s hold on these applications was unjustified. If they really thought that these groups were probably up to no good they should have caught a few by now.

June 17, 2013 at 11:40 p.m.
alprova said...

JT wrote: "This is still under investigation and there are new revelations every day."

Really? Every single "revelation" has been trounced by the testimony that only proves that at worst, there was an organized instance of ineptness by agents charged with verifying how political, political groups were, when applying for consideration for tax-exempt status.

"When the opportune moment arrives they will drop it on Obama and it won't be on a Friday afternoon."

You're nothing, if not a dreamer.

"If you want a real example of “why people lose confidence in their institutions” then the fact that Holder, our chief law enforcement official lied under oath is a prime example."

When Eric Holder is charged, prosecuted, and convicted for lying under oath, let's discuss it. Until then, your opinion is just that...an opinion.

"That is much more damaging than the pointing out of the IRS’s and the Obama administration’s malfeasance in this debacle."

I'm so sorry to inform you, but no one has accused the President, or anyone whom he hired, of any wrongdoing. So far, those who have been let go, or whom have voluntarily resigned, were Bush appointees.

"Although that is way up there on the Holy $^%# list."

How 'bout I go on the record, and state that there will never be anyone even close to Obama touched by any of this.

Your list is a wish list. Crap in one hand and wish in the other. See which one is filled first.

June 17, 2013 at 11:43 p.m.
rick1 said...

Al, if there is a right to vote why did Jesse Jackson Jr propose an Amendment to establish a Constitutional Right to Vote in America?

http://reclaimdemocracy.org/amendment_constitutional_voting_right/

June 17, 2013 at 11:44 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

alprova said...

JT wrote: "Well that is the problem of jumping into other’s discussions when you haven’t made yourself aware of the history of such."

The irony of that statement, coming from you, made me laugh out loud. The bulk of your posts, when you are not copying and pasting old news, consist of you jumping in on other people's exchanges.


Well you seem to have skipped over the part about making “yourself aware of the history” of the discussion thread. Which in this case you obviously failed to do.

June 17, 2013 at 11:45 p.m.
alprova said...

rick1 wrote: "Al, if there is a right to vote why did Jesse Jackson Jr propose an Amendment to establish a Constitutional Right to Vote in America?"

Jesse Jackson Jr.? Are you serious?

The man is or was in the loony bin. He's been charged with converting campaign contributions for personal use.

It doesn't appear to me that he is a fitting example of a man with a good grasp on reality.

June 17, 2013 at 11:52 p.m.
alprova said...

JT wrote: "(Is there a “use by date” on the truth?)"

There most certainly is, when evidence has come out that disproves what was once suspected.

"(That is political profiling by an extremely powerful government agency and the wiser Democrats realize they may be on the receiving end in the future. Even they want an example set to to bring the IRS back into line)"

When this is all said and done, nothing will come down the pike, with the possible exception that agents will be better trained in how to process tax-exempt applications.

The more this investigation proceeds, the less outrageous it becomes.

June 17, 2013 at 11:57 p.m.
alprova said...

JT wrote: "Well you seem to have skipped over the part about making “yourself aware of the history” of the discussion thread. Which in this case you obviously failed to do."

Your loaded and nonsense of a question did not deserve to be addressed or answered.

Apparently, the only difference between yourself and a whining puppy, is that the puppy will eventually quit whining.

June 18, 2013 at 12:02 a.m.
rick1 said...

Al, be honest you know Jackson and every other politician has their staff research and write the bills. Jackson just had his name put on it and proposed it.

I guess this is one where we will continue to disagree.

Have a good night.

June 18, 2013 at 12:09 a.m.
chet123 said...

HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!

June 20, 2013 at 8:08 p.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »

advertisement
advertisement

Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.