This article originally appeared on TownHall.com: The only way I know we still live in a relatively free nation is that, at times, the truth does come out. The IRS
This article originally appeared on TownHall.com:
The only way I know we still live in a relatively free nation is that, at times, the truth does come out. The IRS announced that, yes, it did give extra scrutiny to tax returns that included the name “tea party” or “patriot” as part of their exempt applications. Too bad for Boston that the names Tamerlan and Dzhokhar weren’t on that IRS watch list.
The IRS admits its blatantly illegal actions:
IRS agents singled out dozens of organizations for additional reviews because they included the words “tea party” or “patriot” in their exemption applications, said Lois Lerner, who heads the IRS division that oversees tax-exempt groups. In some cases, groups were asked for lists of donors, which violates IRS policy in most cases, she said.
The Tea Party has been an American institution since 2009, emerging as a response to years of massive government expansion and unyielding waste. A amalgamation of autonomous grassroots groups, the Tea Party advocates for basic principles of Constitutionalism, open markets, fiscal responsibility and shrinking the bloated federal government. Of course, the administration and the mainstream media hate the Tea Party and do everything they can to vilify, demonize and systematically destroy it.
Many have raised the warning flags on this government intimidation. Radio host Mark Levin’s Landmark Legal Foundation first moved on this subject in March, 2012. LLF demanded an investigation into the “Exempt Organization” (EO) division. Levin wrote:
“Recent media reports indicate that the EO Division is using inappropriate and intimidating investigation tactics in the administration of applications for exempt status submitted by organizations associated with the Tea Party movement,”
But it wasn’t just targeting Tea Party groups. It was targeting Tea Party groups during the 2012 election. It was, by every standard, electioneering. It’s as if the IRS stood in front of polling places with billy clubs and black berets. But instead of having to walk the streets, they used the threat of law suits and fines – said another way, it’s retaliation.
It’s not the first time the IRS has engaged in these types of attacks. The Jewish Press reported that pro-Israel group Z Street sued the IRS in 2010, claiming it was unfairly targeted, and its tax exempt status request received that same “extra scrutiny.” The IRS informed them there would be, “…a special unit in the D.C. office to determine whether the organization’s activities contradict the Administration’s public policies.”
We call it what it is. Retaliation.
The IRS, in the tradition of former Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and current Congressional rapscallion Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY), issued an apology on behalf of the entire department, expecting that would make the issue go away:
“That was absolutely incorrect, it was insensitive and it was inappropriate. That’s not how we go about selecting cases for further review,” Lerner said at a conference sponsored by the American Bar Association.
“The IRS would like to apologize for that,” she added.
Apologies won’t do. Only firings, denied pensions and/or jail time will suffice. Those individuals responsible for these travesties cannot be allowed to hide behind a department-wide apology. They must be exposed and held personally accountable. Any elected official who finds this types of selective enforcement schemes acceptable should be voted out of office. And a media personality who does so cannot be trusted. Ever.
Originally posted on AllPatriotsMedia.com:
Radio talk show host Tony Katz once again pushes the envelope with the taping of two new episodes of Tony Katz Tonight, a tv/video talk show. See it LIVE on Wednesday, May 8th at 6pmET.
The show takes current events and pop culture and asks the important questions about both that all the talking heads – daytime and late night – can’t get the nerve or don’t have the sense to ask. Not ideological, but cutting and entertaining, Tony Katz Tonight makes you laugh….and its about time that a late night talk show made you laugh!
Our first episode features columnist Andrew Malcolm, radio host John Phillips and actress/comedianne Miki Yamashita. Our second episode features author and satirist Evan Sayet, actress and blogger Kira Davis and TownHall.com contributor and author Kurt Schlichter.
See the show opens below. And see the show on Wednesday, May 8th at 6pmET.
An update for May 4th, 2013:
Hey, everyone. Be sure to listen to the show today (Saturday, May 4th) Stacy Washington will be sitting in the chair for me today. You can hear the show by clicking this link!
I am on location in Cincinnati, supporting The Cure Starts Now and the DIPG Collaborative, which is working towards a cure for terminal pediatric brain cancer. You can learn more about them by watching the video below. Please share the video below as well.
Enjoy the show! Oh, and be sure to be here on Wednesday, May 8th at 6pmET. My newest venture, Tony Katz Tonight, tapes its pilot – and streams here live!
From The Tony Katz Show on Saturday, April 20th -
In the aftermath of the horrific murders in Boston, and the chase after the leading suspects, the Tsarnaev Brothers (which would leave older brother Tamerlan dead, and younger brother Dzhokhar found bleeding in a boat,) it is time for us to have an honest, real, decent, civil, worthy conversation about radical Islam.
And, when we are told to “See Something, Say Something,” how can that happen when if we say something we are called racists or bigots?
Tony discuss both of these subjects in this segment of The Tony Katz Show.
This article originally appeared on TownHall.com:
When the horrific news from Boston broke, I was on the air with Cam Edwards, host of Cam and Company, All we had to go on was photos of mass chaos obscured by clouds of smoke. I remarked that the photo - not the circumstance – reminded me of shots from 9-11. My prayers are with Boston.
Like all Americans, I want to know who perpetrated this horrendous act. But as I tweeted:
The rush to be first should never overtake the rush to be right. Facts matter.
Right on schedule, since per Rahm Emanuel, one should “never let a serious crisis go to waste,” CNN’s National Security Analyst Peter Bergen and Esquire blogger Charles J. Pierce suggested the bomber could have been a “right wing extremist” since, after all, it happened on April 15th – tax day across the country and Patriot’s Day in Massachusetts. MSNBC’s resident hater, Chris Matthews, pronounced that domestic terrorists, ”tend to be on the far right.” Their common goal, as always, is to tie violence to small government activists and the Tea Party.
It was Cenk Uygur, a Progressive liberal host on Current TV, who opined that the bombing would have had less coverage if someone had shot people in the crowd:
If shooter killed 17 people in Boston Marathon w/ assault rifle it wouldn’t get near the reaction it would if a terrorist kills 3 w/ a bomb.
Mass shootings don’t get media coverage? Since when is the mainstream media controlled by the pro-Second Amendment crowd?
On Piers Morgan’s program, Mark Botok of the Southern Poverty Law Center commented that the bomber was probably not part of the political right. Why? Because the target, “…was not a government building, it was not the IRS, although it was Tax Day on Monday. It was not a minority group. It wasn’t black people or Jewish people or gay people or Muslims.”
This is more than bias; it’s bloodlust. They look at the scene and say, “3 dead and 176 injured in a bombing? That’s a great time to connect it to the political right!”
Actor and radio host Jay Mohr blamed the bombing on gun owners, saying that the 2nd Amendment “must go:”
What bothers me most about today is that we’re getting used 2 it. ENOUGH. 2nd amendment must go. Violence has 2 stop. Culture MUST change.
The 2nd Amendment lends itself to the CULTURE of violence we are living in. Stop blowing up my timeline w your gun/porn fetishes.
He then tried to walk it back:
LISTEN! The 2nd amendment has nothing 2 do w 2day in Boston. I didn’t say it did. Last few times in front of tv like this was guns. Fuckoff
But “2nd amendment must go. Violence must stop. Culture must change” can’t be walked back. To date, there is absolutely no connection between the right to bear arms and the bombs in Boston. Yet Mohr, Bergen, Pierce, Matthews and Uygur have a mandate to connect violence with the political right, no matter how far-fetched. The mandate is to indoctrinate.
Facts don’t matter to Progressives. The shooters in the Tucson, Virginia Tech, and Sandy Hook murders each were in some way connected to the left. But in aftermath of those shootings, the media machine worked overtime to make a connection between conservatives and the mass murders.
Once we know who set the bombs there will be time for commentary. In the meantime, Americans should be alert to pseudo-journalists interested not in truth but rather in a Clockwork Orange approach of forcing you to throw up when you hear the words Republican, right, freedom, rights, or guns – regardless of the truth.
After the bombing at the Boston Marathon, Salon.com contributor David Sirota wrote a column for the site, hoping that the bomber was a, “White American.” This way, he summarized, we could deal with the issue of “White Privilege” and show the double standard between how we treat whites in America and how we would react if the bomber were from an Islamic nation.
The term “White privilege,” according to Wikipedia, “…refers to the set of societal privileges that white people benefit from beyond those commonly experienced by people of color in the same social, political, or economic spaces (nation, community, workplace, income, etc)”
In short, Sirota believes if the bomber is white, we won’t talk about it in the same way we would if the bomber is brown. Sirota is deluded. Of course it will be discussed, just like Lanza, Loughner, and McVeigh (all of them white.) White privilege is a completely made-up term, from the same crowd that brought us social justice (and, probably, YOLO.)
In this video, I address the Sirota delusion. I disposed of it in less than a minute. But, make no mistake, the pseudo-intellectuals (desperate to keep race warfare alive!) will continue with this fetish if left unchecked and unopposed.
Last week, The Five’s “Day-P” (Dana Perino) rapped about Beyonce’s and Jay Z’s anniversary trip to Cuba. Dana’s rap, simple and campy, revealed an undeniable reality – - minus the coolness factor, Beyonce and Jay Z are selfish, coddled megastars, with zero regard for the plight of the Cuban people. Much like most Progressive leftist celebrities, their political leanings equate to total self-absorption.
It seems that Day-P has inspired others.
Bailey Connell, a future nurse and amateur rapper, has often put her musical skills to fun use – mocking, exposing and refuting the nonsensical exploits of the ill-informed. Her spoof of Justin Beiber’s “If I Were Your Boyfriend” (entitled, “If I Were Your President”) amassed over 80,000 views on YouTube. Recently, she took on the trip to Cuba.
Jay Z put out a song about his trip, which received a lot of attention, including from members of Congress who questioned how they received clearance to visit the country. In the song, called “Open Letter,” Jay Z claims it was the White House which gave the clearance. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney denied any involvement in the trip, claiming that it is the Treasury Department that provides clearance to visit the Communist nation.
In the song, Jay Z proclaims that he doesn’t understand the issue with Communism, saying, “I’m in Cuba, I love Cubans. This communist talk is so confusing. When it’s from China, the very mic that I’m using.” He also raps about how politicians never did “shit” for him (except, of course, get him to Cuba and invite his wife to lip-sync at the Presidential inauguration,) and “The world’s under new management.” It remains unclear as to who the new management is, or if they’re any good.
Connell wrote her own song, and made her own video. Enjoy, and share.
Word came today that former UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher passed away at the age of 87. Her time as Prime Minister (1979-1990) was one of massive institutional change in Britain. She modernized the UK, she took on the Unions. She was honest and forthright, and earned the nickname “Iron Lady.”
I will be speaking about her in depth on my radio show on Saturday. Until then, here is a video of her speaking at one of the famous “Question Time” sessions. It speaks to her clear view of those who promote socialism, and socialism itself.
May she rest in peace, and may we all give thanks for her time here on Earth:
MSNBC host and commentator Melissa Harris-Perry starred in one of the network’s famed “Lean Forward” commercials. As opposed to the standard MSNBC fare, Harris-Perry pushed the sickening and dangerous idea that children should belong to the collective, and not to their parents exclusively.
Admitting a true belief in collectivism over the individual, Harris-Perry goes to great lengths in her 30 second spot to demonize “privatization,” and to elevate the idea of the collective (i.e. community.) Part of her rant:
We haven’t had a very collective notion that these are our children, so part of it is that we need to break through our kind of private idea that kids belong to their parents or kids belong to their families and recognize that kids belong to whole communities. Once it’s everybody’s responsibility and not just the household’s, we start making better investments.
And people wonder why MSNBC never says anything critical of the Obama administration? How many times has Obama talked about things like “collective salvation?”
The push towards collectivism is not new. Many throughout history have desired this type of government-forced obscenity. But one must wonder how Harris-Perry, a Tulane professor, came to be such a strong supporter of breaking up families? At what moment did Harris-Perry become a strong supporter of a Brave New World?
Harris-Perry should be asked this question, and those above, often.
In case you missed the original MSNBC video, I have added it below:
This article was originally posted at ChristianPost.com:
At a committee hearing in the Florida legislature on a proposed “Born Alive Bill,” Planned Parenthood’s Alisa Lepolt Snow stunningly asserted that the fate of a child who survives a botched abortion should be left to the discretion of the mother and her doctor. In other words, if the mother so chooses, the baby may be denied medical treatment and left to die.
I discussed this outrageous position on my radio show this week. Two callers to my program sided with Planned Parenthood. One said that it is impossible to judge others, while the other would not answer the basic question – Do You Save The Baby On The Table? Both showed the extent of the liberal ideal of rejecting “right and wrong,” and finding no fault with what others decide, because it’s unfair to judge anything or anyone.
The first caller, John, wanted to defend Planned Parenthood. When I said that it is not necessary for someone to defend evil, or something that is obviously wrong, John stated:
…none of us have the power, none of have the intellect, none of us have the whatever you want to call it, to call anything or anyone truly evil.
Exactly how many ways can this be false? Answer – all of them. The recognition of the difference between good and evil is not an abstract concept. Very often, it plays itself out clearly for the world to see. If leaving a baby to die on a table is not evil, then what is (or has ever been) evil?
When I stated, “…when the baby is born, and its on the table and you leave it to die, that’s murder.” He responded with, “by who’s definition?” John then continued, “Here’s the thing where conservatives mess up. They want the government to reach into peoples lives in certain things…”
Another caller, Jay, also stated that, “keeping the government out of your bedroom is probably important.” I asked, “Do you think letting the baby die on the table is keeping government out of your bedroom?” His answer? “I’m not going to get in to that.”
Saving the life of a baby has nothing to do with government. Saving the life of a baby, a child, an adult, is something the human being does instinctively. However, as both callers have shown, this instinctive behavior has been eliminated from the Progressive mind; They have “Progressed” to the point where saving a child’s life is now not automatic, but rather a conversation that needs lengthy discussion….as the child dies.
The argument of government intervention is as fabricated as a Leftists’ standards. It is the Progressive that aggressively places government in our lives. It is Leftists and left-leaners that think government should control what types of drinks are dispensed by machines in schools and parks, so as to limit schoolkids’ sugar intake. Government should determine the size of your soft drinks or the amount of salt in your food. Government should decide whether adults can choose if they can smoke cigars.
But ask Leftists and left-leaners whether or not clinics are allowed to kill infants, and they are suddenly concerned about the long curette of government.
Planned Parenthood is a radical organization, founded by a known racist and anti-semite, which has long since advocated for infanticide. Snow’s statement, and this type of disgusting behavior from Planned Parenthood – desired by Progressives - have become par for their course.
The Progressive society has worked to eliminate the basic concepts of right and wrong. As I asked on the show, when asked whether you let the baby die on the table, how is the answer not an immediate “No!”? How is their response, or the response from Planned Parenthood, any less disgusting than a Senatorial candidate thinking that there is such a thing as legitimate rape?
As author Evan Sayet states in his book The Kindergarden of Eden, “The liberal believes if we…give up all knowledge of right and wrong, we can return to paradise.”
No law from government, or lack thereof, should allow or could prevent a rational, decent human being from helping to save the life of the baby on the table – even if that baby has survived a botched abortion.