The Dems aren’t going to give up their muzzle without a fight. How obvious can the Dems be? When the Dems lose the Senate, they will get their just rewards.

Ten Democrat senators — none up for re-election this year — killed a measure to prohibit political discrimination by IRS employees.

The Senate Judiciary Committee defeated an amendment by Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas. Titled “Intentional Discrimination by Employees of the Internal Revenue Service,” the measure stated:

“(a) Offense. — It shall be unlawful for any officer of the Internal Revenue Service to, regardless of whether the officer or employee is acting under the color of law, willfully act with the intent to injure, oppress, threaten, intimidate or single out and subject to undue scrutiny for purposes of harassment any person or organization of any state –

“(1) based solely or primarily on the political, economic or social positions held or expressed by the person or organization; or

“2) because the person or organization has expressed a particular political, economic, or social position using any words of writing allowed by law.”

The senators — all Democrats — who voted to kill Cruz’s amendment were:

Patrick Leahy of Vermont
Dianne Feinstein of California
Charles Schumer of New York
Richard Durbin of Illinois
Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island
Amy Klobuchar and Al Franken of Minnesota
Chris Coons of Delaware
Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut
Mazie Hirono of Hawaii

http://libertyunyielding.com/2014/03/06/...avoritism/

If the GOP wins the White House, these people will want to bring this bill back up immediately.

Al Franken is up for re-election this year. Not that he won legitimately in the first place.

What were their official reasons for killing the amendment?

How would it not already be illegal? Can you imagine if a President was reelected by doing this? The public outrage would get him impeached.

(03-07-2014 08:41 AM)Jerry Falwell Wrote:  How would it not already be illegal? Can you imagine if a President was reelected by doing this? The public outrage would get him impeached.

Hasn't yet.

Honestly, I doubt Romney would have won even if this targeting wasn't done. With that said, how scary is it that there are those in Congress that want to make sure they can still use it as a weapon if THEY choose to.

(03-07-2014 08:41 AM)Jerry Falwell Wrote:  How would it not already be illegal? Can you imagine if a President was reelected by doing this? The public outrage would get him impeached.

Prosecutors have to bring it. Lawlessness is condoned by this injustice dept.

(03-07-2014 08:44 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-07-2014 08:41 AM)Jerry Falwell Wrote:  How would it not already be illegal? Can you imagine if a President was reelected by doing this? The public outrage would get him impeached.

Hasn't yet.

His point exactly. Craziness in the white house.

This is like Senate Democrats indorsing the KKK. Oh, I forgot, The KKK's roots were Democrats.

(03-07-2014 08:58 AM)Crebman Wrote:  Honestly, I doubt Romney would have won even if this targeting wasn't done. With that said, how scary is it that there are those in Congress that want to make sure they can still use it as a weapon if THEY choose to.

I wonder if they'll regret this vote the next time a Republican is in the White House.

I love it when the cons favor more government...lol

But yeah, if this isn't already illegal then why are you so upset with the IRS 'scandal'?

(03-06-2014 11:26 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  If the GOP wins the White House, these people will want to bring this bill back up immediately.

Heck, if they win the Senate they might want to bring it back up immediately, cause they may have the numbers to override a veto (there were some Democrats who are actually not thrilled with the IRS escapades)


Btw.. Durbin is up for re-election.

Quote:I love it when the cons favor more government...lol

I dont' get this argument, Tom... in fact this is govt "removing" govt. involvement in discriminatory actions

(03-07-2014 10:49 AM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

Quote:I love it when the cons favor more government...lol

I dont' get this argument, Tom... in fact this is govt "removing" govt. involvement in discriminatory actions

So adding more laws and more regulations do reduce government now? You said it, not me.

Look, if this was truly this nefarious plot some think it was, it was going to take place no matter how many laws were on the books to prevent it as the parties involved would have been doing it undercover without the expectation of getting caught.

You really need to work some with the IRS to know that this is just how they operate, not excusing it, but it sort of confirms that this was just their operation and certainly not some nefarious WH plot as the hard-righties allege.

(03-07-2014 11:20 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-07-2014 10:49 AM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

Quote:I love it when the cons favor more government...lol

I dont' get this argument, Tom... in fact this is govt "removing" govt. involvement in discriminatory actions

So adding more laws and more regulations do reduce government now? You said it, not me.

Look, if this was truly this nefarious plot some think it was, it was going to take place no matter how many laws were on the books to prevent it as the parties involved would have been doing it undercover without the expectation of getting caught.

You really need to work some with the IRS to know that this is just how they operate, not excusing it, but it sort of confirms that this was just their operation and certainly not some nefarious WH plot as the hard-righties allege.

A leftist taking the leftist party line on this IRS issue. I am shocked.

(03-07-2014 11:20 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Look, if this was truly this nefarious plot some think it was, it was going to take place no matter how many laws were on the books to prevent it as the parties involved would have been doing it undercover without the expectation of getting caught.

That line has been used to excuse all sorts of criminal behavior.

How libertarian of you.

(03-07-2014 11:20 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-07-2014 10:49 AM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

Quote:I love it when the cons favor more government...lol

I dont' get this argument, Tom... in fact this is govt "removing" govt. involvement in discriminatory actions

So adding more laws and more regulations do reduce government now? You said it, not me.

Look, if this was truly this nefarious plot some think it was, it was going to take place no matter how many laws were on the books to prevent it as the parties involved would have been doing it undercover without the expectation of getting caught.

You really need to work some with the IRS to know that this is just how they operate, not excusing it, but it sort of confirms that this was just their operation and certainly not some nefarious WH plot as the hard-righties allege.

Yeah, you're excusing it. I guarandamntee you'd be pissed to hell if this was being done by a ® Administration to a (D) party organization, and I urge you to prove me wrong.

(03-07-2014 11:20 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-07-2014 10:49 AM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

Quote:I love it when the cons favor more government...lol

I dont' get this argument, Tom... in fact this is govt "removing" govt. involvement in discriminatory actions

So adding more laws and more regulations do reduce government now? You said it, not me.

No .. add 1 law (hell, not even a FULL 1-page law) to stop discrimination. Oh wait, you're okay with discrimination now?

(03-07-2014 12:27 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(03-07-2014 11:20 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-07-2014 10:49 AM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

Quote:I love it when the cons favor more government...lol

I dont' get this argument, Tom... in fact this is govt "removing" govt. involvement in discriminatory actions

So adding more laws and more regulations do reduce government now? You said it, not me.

No .. add 1 law (hell, not even a FULL 1-page law) to stop discrimination. Oh wait, you're okay with discrimination now?

No, I just don't see that stopping it. Sorry.

(03-07-2014 11:43 AM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(03-07-2014 11:20 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-07-2014 10:49 AM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

Quote:I love it when the cons favor more government...lol

I dont' get this argument, Tom... in fact this is govt "removing" govt. involvement in discriminatory actions

So adding more laws and more regulations do reduce government now? You said it, not me.

Look, if this was truly this nefarious plot some think it was, it was going to take place no matter how many laws were on the books to prevent it as the parties involved would have been doing it undercover without the expectation of getting caught.

You really need to work some with the IRS to know that this is just how they operate, not excusing it, but it sort of confirms that this was just their operation and certainly not some nefarious WH plot as the hard-righties allege.

Yeah, you're excusing it. I guarandamntee you'd be pissed to hell if this was being done by a ® Administration to a (D) party organization, and I urge you to prove me wrong.

Clearly, you haven't been paying much attention, or you'd know that I'm not happy about what the IRS did in this case and have sad it was wrong on numerous occasions. But no I'm not going to get 'outraged' and 'pissed' either way because I know how the IRS operates.

Of course you do know that tea party groups weren't the only focus of the program anyway. Yes, the tea party groups were targeted more, which was the part of the program that I'm not pleased with. They didn't need to do it that way...the should have applied the scrutiny equally to both.