More IRS dirt: Lerner conveniently ignored union political expenditure

There’s so much going on with foreign relations and national security, but we cannot take our eyes off the scandalous actions of the Obama administration here at home. In just another example of the duplicitous hypocrisy of the progressive socialist Left, as reported by The Daily Caller; “The official at the center of the Internal Revenue Service Tea Party scandal once dismissed complaints that labor unions were not reporting millions of dollars in political activities on their tax forms, according to an email obtained by The Daily Caller News Foundation. In 2007, Lerner responded directly to a complaint that some major labor unions reported completely different amounts of political expenditures when filing with the IRS and the Department of Labor. At the time of the email, Lerner was the Director of Exempt Organizations at the IRS.”

We recently reported on the nefarious actions going on in Wisconsin attacking Governor Scott Walker, and there is hardly any there, there. We’ve seen the Travis County DA pursuing Texas Governor Rick Perry. However, we continue to hear from the Left and their media accomplices — if they do even cover the story — that House GOP and conservatives are barking up a bare tree in the case of an the IRS scandal. One can only imagine if the shoe were on the other foot.

Lerner, who is receiving a six-figure, taxpayer-funded pension, as she thumbs her nose at the American taxpayer while pleading the Fifth, wrote: “We looked at the information you provided regarding organizations that report substantial amounts of political activity and lobbying expenditures on the DOL Form LM-2, but report little to no political expenditures on the Form 990 filed with the IRS. We believe this difference in reporting does not necessarily indicate that the organization has incorrectly reported to either the DOL (Department of Labor) or the IRS.”

The Daily Caller Reports, “In 2006, the year leading up to Lerner’s email, the national headquarters for the AFL-CIO reported no direct or indirect political expenditures with the IRS on their 990 form, leaving the line 81a blank. That same year, the AFL-CIO reported $29,585,661 in political activities with the Department of Labor. Additionally, in 2006 the Teamsters Union reported no political expenditures with the IRS, while at the same time reporting $7,081,965 with the Labor Department. Again in 2006, Unite-Here reported no political activity with the IRS and $1,451,002 with the Labor Department. In 2005, the National Education Association reported no political expenditures with the IRS, while at the same time reporting $24,985,250 with the Labor Department. Labor union political spending overwhelmingly benefits Democrats.”

In case you don’t remember, 2006 was a big midterm election year for the Democrats as they sought to win back the House and Senate for George W. Bush’s last two years — and they were successful. Could you imagine if the GOP were doing such a thing right now? Anyway, this all goes to show Lerner did indeed act as a partisan at an agency that should NEVER act in a partisan manner.

And it lends even more credibility to the charge that Lerner continued to act in a partisan manner in another critical election period, benefitting the 2011-2012 election cycle for Obama and the Democrat party. Naturally, the progressive socialist apologists will say what happened in 2006 has no connection to today — way wrong. These facts create a pattern of behavior and demonstrate Ms. Lerner to be politically partisan, rather than an objective servant of the government.

According to the Daily Caller, “Lerner acknowledged in the 2007 email: “The definition of political campaign activity required to be reported on Form LM2 coincides with the definition of political campaign activity expenditures required to be reported on Form 990.” However, she later stated, “Having said that, we did see some instances that raised concerns and we referred that information to our Dallas office to determine whether examination is warranted.” It doesn’t appear any further investigation was conducted.

Will we ever get to the bottom of what happened in the IRS targeting scandal? Obviously not, because there’s another hard core progressive socialist partisan in a critical Obama administration position, Attorney General Eric Holder, who is proud to be an activist — as he has often stated.

So, will they get away with it? Unfortunately it seems yes — to a point. But my fellow Americans, we will have the final say in November of this year. If you want to stop the corruption and collusion of government agencies under the Obama administration and its political actions, you have a chance. If not, then Lois Lerner and others — who we’ll probably learn about later — will become BFFs on your taxpayer dollar.


  1. either have her put in jail where she belongs or shut up, we already know she broke many laws but im tired of hearing about all this lawlessness,sir!

    • Who, other than Eric Holder’s DOJ, is there to prosecute? The only way to keep up pressure is to continue digging, reporting and sharing…

      • Simple question that you don’t need to answer publicly.

        Q: Did you know that this email West writes about was written in 2007 when Lerner was part of the Bush Administration and was following Bush guidelines?

        Q: Did you know that in the email West writes about she explained, in modest detail, how the two forms have different formulations for what is a political expenditure, and as such are not contradictory?

        Those are pretty important aspects of the story.

        If you didn’t know them, if you didn’t get them from West, will you continue to trust West as an honest broker of information?

      • Did you admit that you are an ardent West hater when you started comments.. That just because things keep coming to light of a public that 10 yrs ago didn’t care about an IRS employee.. that YOU proved she’s got a long record, that the Bush Administration may have had no clue, definitely did not benefit while Obama did, she discussed getting the DOJ Holder to go after some, she fast tracked Obama’s family’s but denied Conservatives all hiding behind the boss appointed by Obama.. she subverted an election and yet you will not admit she’d a crook..

      • Huh? Where did she fast-track Obama’s family? I sincerely have no clue what you are writing about.

        I make no secret that I don’t like West. He’s bad for the conservative movement. He created this forum for people to comment on his ideas. I appreciate he at least has the courage to let people discuss his errors.

        How did she subvert an election? Seriously, give me a cogent argument for how she did that. BTW: you do realize that getting an IRS recognition of tax-exempt status is not mandatory? It’s a courtesy. Seriously, look it up. You can self-declare as a tax-exempt organization and then all you have to do is act like one and obey the law. You’re more likely to be audited without the recognition, but it’s not a requirement.

        Google this – learn just this one thing today – google “tax exempt recognition.” See all those hits? That’s because “granting tax recognition” doesn’t happen anymore. You don’t get it granted, you get it recognized, and all the recognition does is help your taxes flow faster through the system.

      • You ~know~ she was following “Bush guidelines” or you’re just making it up again? Lerner is someone who believes she is above others and has her own agenda. Read her statement before she clammed up with this perspective and it makes more sense. I don’t think we will find Obama at the top of this because I don’t think she would need the marching orders to hold so many conservative groups at bay. And yes, the endless circle of maybe was run out of DC, not a “field office in Cincinnati.” We’ve uncovered enough emails to know this much.

        We don’t know what this leftist with a stick buried up her backside. Her HD was “scratched.” Do you know how that is done? You have to drop the laptop from at least a few inches while a file is being written. She did this bad enough that data could not be recovered. How to destroy a HD is no secret.

        Between the two of us, only you see Col. West as a news source. I know he is a concerned citizen with an opinion…

      • I’m all for chasing her down regarding the Tax Exempt recognition issue. Go get her!

        I’m discussing this one issue about the Unions because it’s so transparently not a story that it makes us all look nutty that we’re even discussing it.

        FWIW: She was the voice of the Bush Administration on this issue. She both formed and followed the “Bush Guidelines.” Largely, however, we determine the Bush Guidelines by reading the form instructions. That’s how we do it in a courtroom anyway. What ever the forms say to do, those are the Administration’s guidelines.

      • So, she formed the guidelines that let unions, apparently, delve deeper into politics. I’m shocked…

        Both democrats and republicrats give the national unions too much slack.

        My interest in this thread is the comment above saying charge her or shut up. My point was keep up the pressure and there is a possibility she gets charged.

        Maybe she has cover on this non-action, but I find it hard to believe this person has done anything in her professional life other than use her position to pave the way for individuals and organizations with similar ideological leanings.

      • tru conserv doesn’t want it discussed.. he snipes at anyone that doesn’t agree that learner is innocent West is a criminal Obama a saint and he the only voice of enlightenment which he needs a cattle prod to make his half double speak snipes..

      • While Daniel Hawxhurst wants to see Lois Lerner in jail for her blatant abuse of her position in the IRS in protecting those contributing to Democrats and targeting conservatives, he does not say anywhere that Allen West has that power. If you read the article, you’d see that Allen West doesn’t trust this administration to allow an independent prosecutor to investigate the IRS wrong doings, either. I’d love to see her go to jail, too, but (like Allen West) I think this administration will protect her because the truth would hurt the Democrat Party.

        It’s impossible to understand you can suggest from what you read, that they are saying Allen West has that uathority to jail that criminal Lois Lerner.

      • Blatant abuse?

        These are two different forms, each having a different reporting formulation. You don’t see it in the West article, because West isn’t so good with telling the complete story, but a little digging would have revealed itself to you.

        Further, all this happened between 2005 and 2007. The email was written in 2007 when she was member of the Bush Administration, following Bush Administration guidelines.

        The Bush Administration did nothing wrong in not “going after” the Unions. Lerner was very clear in explaining the Bush position concerning the two forms.

        There is no here, here, w/r/t the reporting.

      • I’m on record welcoming a more complete examination into the Tea Party applications, though so far no crimes have been found or even alleged by anyone of credence. I’d like to see her immunized so we can get the full story as to how that mess happened, and whether there are others higher up that need prosecuting.

        On this issue, this phony Bush Administration loves the unions story – its nonsense. Pull the forms and read for yourself. They’re online. The reporting formulations are different.

        BTW: targeting Americans for investigation is not a crime unless it is done for a non-permitted reason. If it were otherwise, then every District Attorney would be a criminal.

      • Deflect and misdirect a little? Where in Daniel Hawxhurst’s comment or Allen West’s article does it say that Allen West has the power to jail Lois Lerner.

        As to your point, I’m betting Bush was totally unaware that Lois Lerner was ignoring the discrepencies between union reports to the Dept. of Labor and those sent to the IRS pertaining to contributions to the Democrat Party. Lois Lerner sold herself as being nonpartisan and we now know that she and her husband were avid supporters of the Democrat Party. Read the article again. Unions sent forms to the Dept. of Labor saying they had made millions in contributions while the forms sent to the IRS said they’d made smaller or no contributions. It was ignored by Lois Lerner. How would that be misconstrued as Bush “going after Unions”??? Sounds like just the oppposite, doesn’t it?

      • Hi, the West version of the article doesn’t include Lerner’s response, in 2007, to the inquiry about the discrepancies, but basically she explained that because the two forms have different reporting formulations, they will often have different numbers for “political expenditures.”

        In this thread I’ve posted links to the forms and their instructions. A quick read of the forms confirms Lerner’s response. They are very, very, different formulas.

        It should also be noted that notwithstanding her response to the complaint about the discrepencies, she did forward some of the Unions onto the Dallas Office for investigation. The Bush Administration took no action against the Unions.

        As for Lerner, she was promoted just before Bush left office, her response to the watchdog group was never countermanded, superseded not clarified by the Bush Administration, and, again, the Dallas office took no action against the Unions she did refer.

        I want Lerner back before Congress explaining the Tea Party delays, that’s a legitimate issue. This Union stuff, however, is clearly not. It is as she says — two different forms using the same phrase but two different reporting formulas.

        All one needs to see this is a none story is basic math and decent reading comprehension skills.

        In other words, it’s noise.

        I want a laser focused, no “if ands or buts” examination of the applications for recognition of tax exempt status.

        When we talk about this Union non-story, it makes us look petty and like we don’t have anything real to talk about, which is NOT true.

        Conservatives have a clear message and clearer vision for this great country. We do ourselves a disservice when we waste energy on non-stories like this.

    • Why do some insist we should all put our heads in the sand because corruption and greed in our Government is so depressing and sad? Beware when one says I’m the most transparent. They thought it up to tell you that earlier in a secret meeting.

  2. Is it a surprise that these types of activities were going on? The law applies to everyone else but those who contribute to politicians and the politicians themselves. We, as taxpayers, will continue to pay the price as we let these thieves get away with it.

    • The problem is there are people so blinded by party allegiance, they dont care. All they will see is a democrat being ‘persecuted’ by mean republicans. Not the complete breakdown of governmental impartiality and the idea of justice. It happens on both sides, but the level its been happening under this pres to defend his and his cronies actions is breath taking in the degree people are going to delude themselves.

      • I believe that a big part of this problem are all of the every day people who do the cop out and proclaim ” I’m not really political”
        When they say that I don’t waste my time and just say … bless your heart

      • The bigger cop-out is that people say they can’t be bothered to examine the issue beyond what they read in the media, including what they read here from Mr. West.

        If this is a scandal, and it is NOT, then it’s a Bush scandal because all of this is from 2005-2007. She properly responded:

        We looked at the information you provided regarding organizations that report substantial amounts of political activity and lobbying expenditures on the DOL Form LM-2, but report little to no political expenditures on the Form 990 filed with the IRS.”

        “We believe this difference in reporting does not necessarily indicate that the organization has incorrectly reported to either the DOL or the IRS”

        ““The Form LM-2 does not separate this reporting from the reporting of lobbying expenditures,” she wrote. “Furthermore, even if section 501(c)(5) labor organizations were required to report their lobbying expenditures, the amount required to be reported on Form LM-2 includes activity, such as attempting to influence regulations, that is not required to be reported as lobbying, as the IRS limitations apply to legislative lobbying.”

      • IF You can’t nail Bush or one of us you just are not happy are you you have to defend this crook to the very last breath don’t you..You are really sick

      • I’m defending her on this issue because she’s right. The Bush Administration did not favor unions during 2005 to 2007. Her examination of the reporting formulations between the two forms is spot on. Where she thought she saw something unusual, she reported the filing to the independent Dallas office.

        Sick is refusing to listen to calm, rational discussion.

      • you are just double speaking your opinion and like anal opening you have diarrhea of the keyboard apparently, interesting thing to study.. I’ll have to check with a proctologist but I think you may be typing out your a$$ wow a totally new phenom .. we can put you in so many med studies !!!

        Tell me again how you are not paid to pester people while hiding your identity COWARD, Liberal and really just an annoying A$$

      • The problem here is that there is no story. The forms are from different departments and have a different definition of political expenditure.

        The problem here is that people like Mr. West are trying to foment civil unrest be making it look like Unions (and therein the democrats) were allowed to break the law. If West could have been bothered to look at the instruction sheets for the two forms, or just called a tax lawyer, he would have known better. Instead, West ran with a story designed to cause you to lose faith in your government and to tarnish the image of the greatest nation on the planet.

        The problem is that West isn’t really much of a patriot after all.

      • Does Tru as a prefix have the same meaning as Period has at the end of an Obama sentence? Learner admitted the regulations of the IRS and Labor use the same definition of ‘political activity.’

        When did you realize Obama knowingly, purposely lied about about the ACA? Why should we believe any of his self-serving drivel? Or his lying minions?

      • Uhm, here is what she said, fully, and in context.

        Oy … It’s not that they had no political spending, it’s that they had no political expenditures as defined on THAT form.

        “We looked at the information you provided regarding organizations that report substantial amounts of political activity and lobbying expenditures on the DOL Form LM-2, but report little to no political expenditures on the Form 990 filed with the IRS.”

        “We believe this difference in reporting does not necessarily indicate that the organization has incorrectly reported to either the DOL or the IRS”

        ““The Form LM-2 does not separate this reporting from the reporting of lobbying expenditures,” she wrote. “Furthermore, even if section 501(c)(5) labor organizations were required to report their lobbying expenditures, the amount required to be reported on Form LM-2 includes activity, such as attempting to influence regulations, that is not required to be reported as lobbying, as the IRS limitations apply to legislative lobbying.”

        Finally, you do realize that all of this is from when she worked for Bush, yes? If this is a scandal, which it is not, it is a Bush Administration scandal.

      • NO IT IS NOT HE WOULD NOT HAVE HELPED THE Democratic party take over the midterm election why do you keep thinking we buy that argument?? you are delusional..

      • So its your assertion that these unions had ZERO political spending – which is what they told the IRS?
        Are you that dumb or just that willfully blind… Again, the level of contortion of the facts people like you have to make to justify your blind obedience to party over country is as sad as it is breathtaking.

      • Oy … It’s not that they had no political spending, it’s that they had no political expenditures as defined on THAT form.

        (1) You do realize that this all from prior to Obama coming to office, yes? All the complained of activity was from when she was part of the Bush Administration.

        (2) This was her response, as a Bush Administration member:

        “We looked at the information you provided regarding organizations that report substantial amounts of political activity and lobbying expenditures on the DOL Form LM-2, but report little to no political expenditures on the Form 990 filed with the IRS.”

        “We believe this difference in reporting does not necessarily indicate that the organization has incorrectly reported to either the DOL or the IRS”

        ““The Form LM-2 does not separate this reporting from the reporting of lobbying expenditures,” she wrote. “Furthermore, even if section 501(c)(5) labor organizations were required to report their lobbying expenditures, the amount required to be reported on Form LM-2 includes activity, such as attempting to influence regulations, that is not required to be reported as lobbying, as the IRS limitations apply to legislative lobbying.”

      • I noticed you didnt quote this line:

        “Having said that, we did see some instances that raised concerns and we referred that information to our Dallas office to determine whether examination is warranted.” It doesn’t appear any further investigation was conducted.

        Again, you are asserting they made NO political spending thats required by the IRS…..

      • I’m not asserting anything. I’m stating that the forms require different reporting formulations. I’m stating that the Bush Administration’s position that one can have expenditures required for one form and not the other is perfectly plausible.

        That she referred the few instances of the many for review by the Dallas office, that Lerner did not control, demolishes your argument that she was protecting Unions on behalf of the Bush Administration.

        The Bush Administration did not violate the law by not going after the Unions, and Lerner was not in violation of the law for following the Bush guidelines.

        I want to learn more about the not-for-profit scandal, but that becomes more difficult when non-stories like this, ones that make conservatives look foolish, make it into the news.

        Now, the libs can say, “sure, the 501(c) stuff is a scandal, just like that whole Bush Administration labor form was.” This false story about Lerner’s time with the Bush Administration become a smoke screen the libs can hide behind.

        Nothing, NOTHING! will come of this form-story. It’s just a lose-lose for conservative voices.

        I want less Noise and more Signal in my Conservative Signal-to-Noise ratio!

      • “I’m not asserting anything.”
        Except you are.

        THIS is an asserion: “The Bush Administration did not violate the law by not going after the Unions, and Lerner was not in violation of the law for following the Bush guidelines.”
        What proof do you have tha they didnt beyond an assumption of innocence. The whole point of the article is that there is no evidence and investigation was made or a serious attempt to determine one way or other. So for you to ASSERT that there was no violation of the law is presumptive AT BEST. I like Bush as a person and in a lot of ways as a president, but he was no saint and if HIS IRS made mistakes, it needs to be found out and investigation of the Unions needs to be made.

        THIS is an asserion: “That she referred the few instances of the many for review by the Dallas office, that Lerner did not control, demolishes your argument that she was protecting Unions on behalf of the Bush Administration.”
        You know what her responsibilities were? You know whether she had oversite or influence on that office? She had no ability to confirm, pursue, or direct the progress of the investigation? You are claiming a lot of knowledge that I seriously doubt you have.

      • Within that post, yes, I made assertions.

        Since you asked: my proof is contained in her explanation: the forms are different and have different formulations. My proof is that no one in the Bush Administration, who surely hated the unions, acted to change her findings, nor did Bush fire her, nor did Bush go after the Unions when the Unions were referred to the Dallas office.

        Yes, I actually know what the job was – why don’t you?

        The forms are public information, pull them off line. Go spend some time using the CCH Reporter is you need help understanding the tax code. I always do research, so don’t feel bad if you too as well.

        Her job title is in the article, that job title has a description available on line. If you were familiar with the service (the IRS), you’d know these things.

      • You just have to spout your vitriol but everyone that thinks she is a crook acting at the benefit of the Democratic party and paved the way for all those except Conservatives will you please use your cattle prod on yourself..

      • “Within that post, yes, I made assertions.”

        So at least you are willing to finally admit that.

        As far as your proof – again – thats not proof, thats lack of evidence which isnt proof, its lack of evidence one way or other.

        As to her title and job description i actually do know something about that and GS jobs in general. And if you look those up and ever actually hold them, you know that not all responsibilities are going to be on the website description

        Finally, if you are going to pretend to be a conservative, you may try being a bit mature in your post. The ad hominems and rather childish attempts at derision arent impressive and just admission that you cant really make an argument on facts. Just so YOU know, research doesnt include supplanting fact for your opinion or representing your interpretation as facts. Everything you have presented as ‘evidence and proof’ is completely subject to interpretation and only evidences that you arent willing or able to distinguish between whats a hard fact and what your opinion of the fact is.

      • Dear boy, I made assertions in a post wherein I commented that I hadn’t made assertions before. There is no “gotcha” in that.

        I don’t think you understand what proof means, either within or without a court room. I offered you proof in that I referred to you to evidence that you could easily find. Evidence and proof are not the same.

        If you know Lerners title and how GS works, then you would know that when she held the position of Director of Exempt Organizations once she made the referral to the Dallas office for investigation, she was out of the loop until an appeal would have been filed if an adverse determination had been returned. That’s how the service works.

        I note you have made no argument at all, other than to whine that you don’t like mine.

        The fact is that these were two different forms with two different reporting formulations. Go to the stacks if you have to. CCH and BNA are your friends.

        Your complaint about ad hominems within a note replete with them is, hilariously, noted.

      • Ahh yes, again you cant refrain from slighting remarks because again, you failed to make a valid point.

        First, you offered your opinion of information you deem is proof of something. Your “proof” as you stated is that the Bush administration didnt do anything in spite of their dislike for unions. Your words. Thats not proof of anything. Its not even proof nothing was done. It only says that you are again trying to pass your interpretation off as fact. Another “interpretation” might be that multiple lower level officials did nothing when they should have. Another “interpretation” might be that something was attempted and failed. Either way, none of that is “proof”, its interpretation of a very small amount of known facts. None of which are necessarily even the whole of available facts. AGAIN, you can continue to insist you arent contradicting yourself, but you are.

        As far as whining, again, you can throw out the little childish remarks, but it doesnt change the fact that every time the fallacy of your argument is pointed out, its not whining, its pointing out you have no real argument. Just opinion.

        And a dictionary can be your friend as well, as your idea of what of an ad hominem is not in keeping with the definition. But at least you are being consistent by supplanting fact for your belief in that too.

      • Didn’t do anything is a statement of fact. No legal actions were taken against the Unions by the Bush Administration. It’s a binary statement. Either it took an action, or it didn’t. If you think it did, then prove it.

        You’ve only pointed out that you don’t understand rhetoric and fail to perceive what is meant by a cogent argument. You sound like the criminal defense lawyer trying to argue that it might have been that aliens actually did the crime, so reasonable doubt hasn’t been met.

        The Bush Administration did not penalize Lerner for her interpretation of the two forms, indeed, it promoted her before Obama came to office. The Bush Administration’s Dallas office did nothing against the Unions for their filings. The Bush Administration did not superceed Lerner’s letter with a clarify letter now with any additional instructions on the issue.

        Two forms. Two distinct reporting formulas. I’ve given you the hard evidence. You can continue to make conservatives look bad by pretending you can’t read, therefor you can’t acknowledge the differences, but, based on your participation here, we have proof you can read. (oh, dear, I used that Proof word again.)

      • Ok little one, since you are incapale of seeing the light shone on your fallacy, i will shine it in your face to see allow you to ponder it.

        1. The Department of Labor form is proof of nothing one way or another. Further you are TRYING and completely failing in spite of claiming to have read the form instructions, to prove that A and B are mutually exclusive. A being Dept of Labor form claims and B being IRS form claims. They are not mutually exclusive just because they arent exclusively equal. A may = 1/2 B or B may truly be 0 even if A is X. But NONE of the instructions mean that NONE of A can be part of B. You “proof” fails on that part. The Labor form is a data point that provides information to an investigation of the IRS from, it is not nor have I claimed A = B, you are trying to claim that A and B are seperate entirely and the forms nor even Lerner say that. You clearly dont understand or dont care to understand the forms or what they represent.
        2. You havent made a single address to the original question, your post is only valid if B IS truly 0, ie the NEA and other unions made ZERO reportable political donations. Thats HIGHLY unlikely and bears investigation BASED on the data point of the Department of Labor form.

        You can compare the two forms all you want. You are comparing BLANK forms without the Union information in them, NO KNOWLEDGE of their TRUE expenditures beyond the limited amount reported here, and making specious claims that are only true if, as I said, NONE of the money reported on the Labor form can in any way be considered reportable under the IRS form. WHich, AGAIN, Lerner herself contradicts you.
        You also CLAIM to know what investigations did or did not happen under Bush AND what investigations may have been directed but went no where. As I have no interest in investigation MILLIONS of documents, I dont need to provide proof, merely to make the case that its possible an investigation was ordered or even just considered and went no where or got stonewalled. Given Bush was in a lame duck term and had little political motivation to do so, its probably likely he didnt, but that is just a supposition, just like yours. As YOU have certainly not poured through the unclassified much less classified minutes of his or the Dept of Rev records for that era.
        Either way if he didnt, its proof of nothing. Its not for Bush to direct an investigation into such a thing, and IN FACT, would be exactly the same political targeting your friend Obama has apparently been up to.
        But Bushs actions are not the ones being questioned. The REAL question and observation is the FACT that Lerner HAS clearly targeted conservative groups and her CLAIMS she did not and has been impartial are in question by this instance.
        THIS CASE in itself and by itself is not anything – as you say, HOWEVER, this case in conjunction with all others is called a PATTERN OF BEHAVIOR, which if you know anything about law like you claim, IS VERY MUCH evidence.

      • Again, you misstate my position and Lerners, and I’d think you’d be embarrassed by it at this point.

        I didn’t say they were mutually exclusive, I said they had different formulations. It is possible, then, that one calculation would be zero and the other a much larger number.

        And, again, Lerner’s submission of a subset of the forms to the Dallas office contradicts your claim that she was a just a stooge for the Unions. It affirms my position that she was not, that she was just doing her job.

        BTW: you need to re-read “Prior acts” as evidence within R 404 and 608. You’re failing miserably.

      • “I didn’t say they were mutually exclusive, I said they had different formulations. It is possible, then, that one calculation would be zero and the other a much larger number.”
        And the ONLY way your ‘argument’ has any validity was they HAVE to equal zero because back to my ORIGINAL question – this being the closest you have come to answering it – was about that the Unions claimed ZERO political donations as reportable. AGAIN you cant seem to make the step that I DONT CARE ABOUT THE LABOR FORM ITS ONLY INFORMATION NOT EVIDENCE OF A OR B.
        Unlike your view of the world which seems to say that well they arent mutually exclusive but it still can be zero so i am going to act like it is and woe to anyone who says thats impossible.
        You need to drop this idea that you are proving something by continuing the beat the same tired IRRELEVANT drum that they are calculated different. NO ONE SAID THEY WERENT. NO ONE SAID THEY WERE EQUAL.
        and “BTW” YOU might want to AGAIN use a DICTIONARY and look up the difference between the words “PATTERN OF BEHAVIOR” and “PRIOR ACTS”.
        I eat dinner every day at around 5 – thats a PATTERN OF BEHAVIOR. Has nothing to do with the reference you make and you are just too stupid to get that like everything else I guess.

      • Yea, I appreciate your desire to run from your comments.

        Bottom line is this: as she explained, the two forms have different formulations and a different line entry on each does not necessarily indicate bad conduct. I gave you links to the forms so you could read them and learn that, yes, she was right.

        You refused to read them because, it seems, you can’t stand to be confronted with evidence that destroys your narrative that she must have done something wrong.

        Further, she did refer some Unions for investigation to the Dallas office. That destroys your other narrative, that she’s a Union stooge.

        Everything else is you thrashing around engaging in a sad mix of confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance.

      • “Further, she did refer some Unions for investigation to the Dallas office. That destroys your other narrative, that she’s a Union stooge.”
        Quote me.. Show me where I did that.
        The sad fact for you is, despite your attempte to impersonate a conservative, your tactic of telling people they said something they didnt so you can argue against that and arguing points that have never been in dispute because you cant argue the real points is tipping your hand as to what kind of person you are.
        Again, this was in your very first post “it’s that they had no political expenditures as defined on THAT form.”
        You have done ZERO to prove that point, you ignore to address what ever information they put on either form and continue to try to use the point that the two forms use different calculations to fill in different amounts (a point NO ONE disputed).
        You havent made a SINGLE post to justify your VERY FIRST CLAIM. And unlike YOU, i DIRECTLY QUOTE YOU and dont just make up BS and tell you thats what you said.

      • No matter how many times you stomp your feet and no matter how long you hold your breath, the simple truth remains. You and West want to libel this lady as being soft on the Unions because she has is out for Conservatives.

        You can’t sustain that argument — you can’t carry your burden — because of three simple things:

        When she was asked to look into the different reporting on the two forms she reported back that the forms had different formulations.

        You’ve been provided those forms and their instructions, and they confirm there are different formulations.

        Notwithstanding the formulation differences, she did forward some of the Unions onto the Dallas office for examination.

        That completely destroys your narrative.

        You and West lose.

        The Bush Administration wins. The Bush Administration was not soft on the Unions so as to harm the Conservatives.

        If you still contend it was, then step up and meet your burden.

      • ” You and West want to libel this lady as being soft on the Unions because she has is out for Conservatives.”
        Yaaaaawn…. Quote me saying that or even implying that. You have failed to quote me a single time you try and claim i said this or that.. Its rather pathetic any more.

        “Notwithstanding the formulation differences, she did forward some of the Unions onto the Dallas office for examination.
        That completely destroys your narrative.

        Actually no, it completely destroys your narrative that they made NO REPORTABLE expenditures according to that form. That was your claim, the claim you have yet to sustain a claim not even supported by Lerner.

      • Its a “binary question”, you can either quote me saying what you claim i did or you cant. And leads to a binary answer. You are either a liar or you arent. YOu cant quote me so you are lying.
        I know providing ACTUAL PROOF is pretty confusing for people like you, you know like ACTUALLY QUOTING and not just inserting your opinion for fact like you are constantly doing. So I recommend you reread it and my posts a few times. Take a tylenol for any headaches.

      • I’m sorry, what do you think you are showing actual proof of? Do you have actual proof of Lerner being soft on the Unions? Of her doing so unlawfully?

        Seriously, what the heck have you been rambling on about?

      • The reason you are confused is because you believed your own lies. And now when confronted with them your brain (what little of one you have) cant reconcile whats true and what you believe.

      • Can you be specific? It’s a lot to ask of an admitted troll, but if you’re up for trying to discuss this honestly, I’ll repeat my offer — I’ll answer any cogent question you ask.

      • Again, supplanting your opinion for fact through selective reading. You fail again by the fact that your idol Lerner STATED there may be an issue and referred it for investigation. So are you now asserting you know more about tax law than she does? You already seem to be asserting you know more about her job than she does.
        Your contradicted by the very person you are defending.

      • No. Just the hard fact that the instructions are different. Do you know what a redline of a document is? If so, then run one. It’s obvious to even the most mendacious of readers.

        Anyway, your academic failing notwithstanding, this is called evidence within the Fed R of Crim Pro. I’m never sure what you fringers think proof is — nothing seems to satisfy you that you’re wrong, and anything seems to do when you try to prove that you’re right.

        Kenyan Birth anyone?

        Moving on, you wrongly state my position and Lerner’s.

        Lerner makes clear in her letter, quoted throughout this thread, that a discrepancy between the two forms is not proof of a violation of law. That’s my point as well.

        That she referred some to the Dallas office for investigation destroys your point, that she was nakedly covering for the Union’s lawlessness. It actually proves the opposite. It proves that while a difference in the two forms is not dispositive of a violation of the law, there may be a weight of the circumstances that gives rise to the need for an investigation.

        There is no story here, other than the fringe of the far right once again making the conservatives look bad — and that is my true objection.

      • She stated there may be an issue in a subset of the cases, but only after informing the recipient of the letter that a difference in the reporting lines was not evidence, alone, of a bad act. Based upon an undisclosed rationale she submitted some of the complained of behavior to the Dallas office for review.

        That evitiates your claim that she was working to cover the bad acts of the Union — she turned some of them over for further review. She did her job.

        She did nothing wrong. I’ve given you the forms. You can read the formulations. They are not the same.

        The Bush Administration rewarded her with a promotion, took no action against the Unions and never acted to clarify or supersede her response.

        Where is the story here other than your refusal to accept there is no story here?

      • “Based upon an undisclosed rationale she submitted some of the complained of behavior to the Dallas office for review.”

        “. I’ve given you the forms. You can read the formulations. They are not the same.”

        “Where is the story here other than your refusal to accept there is no story here?”
        I wrote in all caps so you might be able to read them, because I can only assume and give you the benefit of the doubt maybe you just dont understand lower case letters as you have been so completely oblivious to their meaning.

      • You just have to sit on this site and say SHE’S INNOCENT BUSH DID IT… How much do they pay you?? Is it worth selling out the country??

      • LIKE EVERY OBOMINITE Blame Bush.. Yep he had to have contributed to the Democratic party to take over his last midterm and set up so it would be a phoney scandal when she subverted an election.. She made sure that TRUE the VOTE was held back so the Cowardly Lion could have his second slice of the pie..Make sure he wins that second term !!!

      • Obama was elected in 2008. The union conduct is from 2005, the letter this article is about is from 2007. Did you lose your sense of place and time?

      • WEST HAS NOT spent TWO days calling YOU names.. Your hatred of him makes me think you stalk his site to pump yourself up how small are you..

      • I’m killing time on an IBB while waiting for my turn at the plate for my current project … what are you doing?

    • Someone wants it all blamed on Bush, and that LTC West needs to be judged by him of course can’t admit that only God can Judge him He was Honorably discharged which just twists his guts..if you make any more statements he will attack again and again.. i’ve had him filling my inbox for three days now.. he is just a Democratic mouthpiece..that’s sole purpose is to stop all discussion by calling you names etc etc etc.. to him Learner is innocent as a newborn babe, Bush is the VIle mastermind, West is a murdering traitor that was run out of the Military on a rail of shame….etc etc etc Oh and we that don’t agree with him are too stupid to live.. I think he OD’d on Fool-aid long ago

    • Yes, a fake scandal, and this one is about Bush, not Obama.

      The time period is question is 2005-2007 when Lerner worked for the Bush Administration and followed the Bush Administration guidelines. The e-mail Mr. West writes about is from 2007.

      You won’t find those dates in Mr. West’s write-up because he’s not much on giving the complete facts.

      I encourage you to read into the story, or this thread, to see her full response. There were two different forms with two different reporting requirements. The Bush Administration did nothing wrong.

      • The scandal is hers on this watch.. it isn’t something that you can BLAME ON BUSH It isn’t a phoney scandal it just shows she’s been doing it for 10 yrs and probably longer.. stop defending the witch..The IRS the Administration that took it from just the IRS to the DOJ, and everyone else..SHE COMMITTED CRIMES UNDER THE COLOR OF AUTHORITY. Do you need an explanation of that too??

      • What crimes? I understand very well color of authority, I also understand the need to name the predicate offense.

        What is the predicate offense?

      • TruConserv djmc993150 • a day ago
        Oy … It’s not that they had no political spending, it’s that they had no political expenditures as defined on THAT form.

        Prove it.

      • Prove what? That’s what the filing means. That’s what the Union conveyed and what the Bush Administration accepted.

        You want me to go investigate the Unions because you’re too dense to follow basic logic and have poor reading comprehension?


        I’ve given you the forms. I’ve given you the quotes from the Bush Appointee. You want to accuse the Bush Administration of being easy on the Unions, then you have the burden of moving forward.

      • “That’s what the Union conveyed and what the Bush Administration accepted.”
        Actually no, since again Lerner referred it for investigation. So you apparently must have proof of the results of that investigation. Further, you must have the complete filings of all those unions and their records to be able to assert the postion that they made NO REPORTABLE political spending. Otherwise your assertion that they were in full compliance is a supposition based on partial evidenc. You dont know that they didnt make a mistake or even lie, you dont know if the investigation was even done, you dont know if an investigatio was odone and dropped becassue the amount in questions was not worthy of investigation but still not zero, you just dont know. But you are asserting you are, so prove it. You didnt say no charges were filed, you unequivocally stated they had NO expenditures reportable on that form. Which no government provided document or official has stated, thats on you. So unless you can provide that document and / or an audit that proves it, you are an exaggerative

      • If only you could actually figure out how to quote and prove a point or your position by doing so you might be reasonable. But since you continue to just throw out whatever tinfoil hat interpretation of what you want people to have said so you can argue against THAT instead of what was actually said, which you continue to fail to quote me a single time that would substantiate your claims about what i said, you could shut me up. You cant. YOu are lying. Flat out lying. Thats binary. You continue to try and tell me what i said and what my position is and when I tell you to quote me or cite where I did you just continue to make vague statements and go on more tangents. You are pathetic and your defense of the unions is pathetic. Your grandiose statements that could only be supported by ACTUAL DATA FROM THEIR FORMS WHICH YOU DONT HAVE is pathetic.

        Your sad, pathetic, and have zero credibility because you continue to do the same dumb thing people of your ilk do, you cant win a debate / discussion on a point you dont like so you lie about what the person said and argue about that because you think you can win that way. You havent won anything, you havent proven anying. And “little boy” you have only proven that the only way you can discuss a point is to make ad hominem attacks and slighting remarks to score points for yourself in the mirror tonight where you can hoist your internet debate trophy made out of macaroni you made for yourself.
        So “little boy” go back to your room go congratulate yourself for lying your way to another self designated “victory” like you probably do everynight and continue to ignore the fact you havent answered a single challenge to the things you have said and have lied consistently about what others said.

      • I’ve proven that (1) Lerner was right when she wrote that the two forms have different reporting requirements and that (2) a discrepancy between the two forms “expenditures” lines is not proof of a bad act, and consequentially, I (3) proved that this “story” is a sham.

        The complaint is that Lehner was easy on the Unions, as evidenced by her not pursuing them when the two forms were not in sync. I’ve destroyed that fiction.

        The two forms have different reporting requirements. A variance is proof of nothing. Further, Lehner, based on undisclosed facts, sent a few of the Unions on to the Dallas office for investigation.

        So much for her being a friend of the Unions.

        This story is a sham. No matter how you try to distort what I wrote, no matter how you try to pretend you aren’t just shilling for West – I’ve proven the story is a sham, a fraud, a bunch of noise that detracts from the work of Real Conservatives.

        School is over … go back to playing your sophomoric games.

      • Here’s the thing – you don’t have a good grasp of the facts. Several Unions were complained about in a letter to the IRS. Lerner was tasked with responding.

        Her response was that variances between the two forms was not, by itself, evidence of wrongdoing. She went on to explain that the two forms have different reporting formulations.

        She did however, refer SOME Unions to the Dallas office.

        The narrative in the West article, that you are so ardently supporting, is that Lerner is a Union stooge who gave cover to criminal Unions.

        That narrative is destroyed when you read the two forms while also taking note that Lerner did, in fact, send Unions on to be investigated.

        You lose.

      • Sigh….

        “The narrative in the West article, that you are so ardently supporting,”
        quote me.
        Still havent seen you quote me once to sustain a single accusation of the points you claim i am making.
        Quote me where i ardently support his article.
        Thats black and white / binary too. You either have a quote or you dont, you either are a liar or you arent.

      • Oh, I see, you’re ranting and raving about how wrong I am … because you have no position?

        That just makes you a troll, which would explain you nonsensical posts.

      • BTW: All actions of this nature are public records. I can’t show you the absence of a record, I can only tell you no record of an action exists. In the world of argument, that’s called proving the negative. It’s tough to do, but when all actions are recorded, then the absence of an action is proof of no action.

        See how that works?

        It’s binary – no action was taken against the Unions. You think I’m wrong. Prove it. Actions are public record, so go find the record that shows I am wrong.

  3. Could you even imagine how big this story would be If the shoe was on the other foot and Bush was still president? The media would be calling it the greatest Presidential Scandal in the History of Politics! .

    • Imagine how angry you would be if the libs spread a false story designed to foment civil unrest, as West has done here.

      Read the IRS response, or talk to a tax attorney. The two forms have the same phrase on the reporting line, but their definitions are different. When you read the instructions for the forms, it tells you what the phrase means. It’s not the same.

      That’s why one form says “zero” or is empty and on the other form there is an actual number.

      Mr. West has lied to you for the sole purpose of trying to cause you to lose faith in your government, for the purpose of making the US government look bad. There’s a special level of hell for people like that … don’t you agree?

      • I’m not a big defender of Lerner on the Obama Administration scandal over the Tea Party applications. I think she was wrong there, though I am not sure it was criminal. I’d like her to be immunized and see how far up the ladder the decision making went.

        I am defending her on this issue because this is a phony complaint.

        Two different forms, two different reporting formulations, all done under an anti-union Bush administration.

        I have an advantage over you and West, I’ve actually done work in the field of tax law. This is such a non-story … it just detracts attention from the real story and the real place where attention is needed.

      • “TruConserv djmc993150 • a day ago
        Oy … It’s not that they had no political spending, it’s that they had no political expenditures as defined on THAT form.”
        Prove it.

      • IKR? West is just out there trolling for wingnut support, meanwhile true conservatives are left fighting the libs while also carrying the burden of being saddled with West’s nonsense.

      • Look you have shown every one your tru colors, your tru agenda and Frankly This is simple Facts:

        Fact #1 NO TRUE CONSERVATIVE would so completely hide their Identity to attack EVERYONE that doesn’t follow the “party line”

        Fact#2 NO TRUE CONSERVATIVE would ever brag about a CATTLE PROD OF ENLIGHTENMENT because they believe in a higher power of God or Jesus, our brothers in Israel are our Faith based Friends and neither of us condemns the others view, we can be at Peace with each other. The fact that you feel you need a Cattle prod of ENLIGHTENMENT is in and of itself sick and offensive.

        Fact#3 NO TRUE CONSERVATIVE would stand behind someone that states this Country is not a Christian Country.

        Fact #4 NO TRUE CONSERVATIVE would come on a man’s page and spew accusations about someone that HONORABLY served this country in a war, that you couldn’t separate the good guys from the bad and focus his HATE because that VOLUNTEER Solider Focused on Protecting those he was responsible for and HONORABLY DISCHARGED.

        Fact 5# NO TRUE CONSERVATIVE as you claim to be would defend so Blindly a Former Election Office Employee now working for the IRS the only branch of Government that you are guilty until proven innocent and gloss over that she did her part to rig an election. That she directed other alphabet agencies to go after those she was having trouble getting them to give in and just fade away, after she order audits of their organizations and private lives, blindly with malice and forethought.

        Fact #6 NO TRUE CONSERVATIVE would be so snarky and smug that you can not agree that WE THE PEOPLE are fed up with a Woman that was placed in charge of {pardon my language to some, not you} COCK-BLOCKING conservatives from getting status prior to an election that would allow them to get added funding to try to make the election Fair and Equal. That assisted the actions of the “CLEARED” ones in blatant election fraud.

        Fact#7 NO TRUE CONSERVATIVE would be dismissive of Obama’s family Brother I believe Tax exempt status was done and approved in three weeks, yet real Conservatives were denied 3 years +.

        Fact #8 NO TRUE CONSERVATIVE wouldn’t want this to end with sweeping IRS reform if not down right change to flat tax.

        Fact #9 NO TRUE CONSERVATIVE would feel comfortable with the fact that when starting to be investigated suddenly she crashes a computer oh and blackberry oh and 5 more employees that she worked with not only in the IRS but also in the Elections office.

        Fact #10 NO TRUE CONSERVATIVE says there is anything in this story in this article that proves her innocence. That since she has history breaking laws so easily for her buds, Democrats and Unions probability she did it again is high.

        Fact #11 NO TRUE CONSERVATIVE would buy for one scintilla that Bush wanted her to act out in his administration for him during a mid-term election,when he was already in the last of his second term. Yet believe that without talking to groups that were targeted, all the investigations by a corrupt DOJ found no proof…

        Fact #12 NO TRUE CONSERVATIVE would look at the history of this woman and her actions in the Election office, and IRS and not demand Justice for her crimes.

        Fact#13 NO TRUE CONSERVATIVE would think she didn’t commit a crime when evidence has been destroyed, deny and delay of this Administration was the first action taken. Would say oh there is nothing there find something else to look into..

        Fact #14 NO TRUE CONSERVATIVE would allow their family to be welfare supported illegal aliens in this country for over 20 + years.

        So the FACTS HAVE BEEN LAID OUT, Going Back to my FIRST POST where I said that if they FREEZE EVERY PENNY even spent on a square of Toilet Paper, Follow the MONEY and THE TRUTH WILL COME OUT.


        So I know it will be difficult but LOOK CLOSE, READ CAREFULLY, since 2008 NO TRUE CONSERVATIVE would look at anything that has happened since Barack “Hussein” Obama {middle name highly hidden until swearing in} swore an Oath and has broken it every day since.

        Sit back and call those saying it was looked into nothing here move along people.. and take that as the representation of FACTS.

        YOU FOOL-AID FRAUD..TRU CONSERV spout your hate, your defense of the indefensible and use your cattle prod and ENLIGHTEN YOURSELF I’ll supply the Lube..

      • You’ve become unhinged and I think you have me confused with someone else. That cattleprod comment was as far as I got. I have no idea what that was all about, but it clearly communicated to me that you’re not well.

        I wish you peace and blessing from the Lord Jesus Christ.

      • You backed down hahahahah the facts too much and you have too retreat to calling me names because you have nothing to stand on you are a putz and everyone knows it because they beat you and you thow out a pout attack because you can’t fight the facts.. you blasted me last night after a long very hard day and kept sniping and now you just can’t get it up.. oh well I can find a real person to talk to on a sat night I actually have a life hahahhaha sucka you suck..

      • You’re unhinged … I actually feel sorry for you. It seems someone did something to you with a cattleprod, and for that I truly do hope you’ve gotten help.

        I haven’t read past the cattleprod remark and I won’t.

        If you want to discuss this rationally, let’s do that. If you can’t refrain from personal attacks and acting, well, loony, then it’s like better for you that we don’t engage further. I don’t think this has been good for your mental health.

      • dumba$$ coward when can’t respond to simple facts fall back on party phoney-izers… Good night I’ll let you take your meds and maybe not be in panic mode on Sunday..BTW after church cause

      • “poor poor little it” we really don’t have the facts to call you BOY or GIRL Liberal that you are probably somewhere in the change process..

      • I understand that that many facts blew your tiny circuits I’ll give you till tomorrow I’m heading out for the evening anyway.. so read em I know that will take you a long time to understand some of the big words..

        BTW Bless your tiny pea picking heart you try sooo hard we have to give you a chance “poor wittle IT”

  4. LTC West, your pension and my Air Force E-8 pension probably don’t add up to her pension. But look at what we, and especially you (and our familys), had to go through to get oour pensions. She needs her day in court and if convicted, cut off the pension.

  5. Actually
    they are in court and hearings in congress have been going on. We the people
    need to pressure them for a special prosecutor. . Write your Congressman, send emails whatever, or sign the petition below. Since there is now a link to the DOJ
    and the West Wing.The IRS was told to “piece together” false claim cases by the DOJ. The DOJ obviously cannot investigate itself

  6. I never knew until this scandal broke that the IRS is am arm of the Democratic Party, its where the Democrats get their power to rule the masses and funds to drain the money from the pockets of the workers

  7. In 2012, The Union’s including my old Union the UAWand others gave Obama
    Re-Election Campaign over 400 Million of there Memberships money
    Just last month the UAW raised Dues on the workers and retirees , saying they did not have enough income, HELLO, then Raised Blue Cross Blue Shield , saying they did not have enough money for that also, even though they have over 19 Billion in the bank
    I said this when I was a Member, In OHIO YOU have to be one, They are only interested in your Money, They could care less about you, always the same old excuse

    WE have to put people into Office that would help you out, YEA SURE

    LOcal 1005 UAW Parma, Ohio

    • Sounds like a great reason to make a rule that Unions can’t use dues funds for political contributions.. oh but wait.. they are the ones that helped put us in this mess…Bussed voters where they could vote twice, helped with the Obamanation we are stuck with because you believed lies and didn’t check anything like Normal people did..and as such didn’t vote for the idiot twice thrice quad etc..etc.. I can admit I am wrong, SUFFER WITH THOSE OF US THAT HAVE A BRAIN and didn’t drink the Fool-aid or let someone spends our money for it.. America can possibly recover some if… OH YEA UNIONS weren’t crying for outrageous Minimum wages..You help the American worker decades ago then you got Greedy so suck it up and deal like we that didn’t vote for him, didn’t allow our money to go to him.. suffer daily.. your bosses did it because of wink wink nod type deals..Make them give up what they have stashed for a rainy day because the creek is rising because he said we weren’t a christian nation so I can’t tell you Lord willing and before that last bit.

    • Because she knows what you do not — the two forms have different reporting requirements. Yes, they use the same term, but they have different meanings. All one has to do is read the instructions on the forms to see that difference, or, one could have just read the response from the IRS.

      If one really, really wanted to dig into it, they could have looked at the reporting forms from these orgs during the Bush, Clinton, Bush and Reagan administrations.

      She’s not in jail because she’s violated no law.

      You want her in jail because Mr. West deliberately misled you.

      • EXCUSE ME??? VIOLATED NO LAW… She destroyed records. She Targeted Americans with her power of Office. She has lied and then she clammed up and sat and collected money for doing nothing but covering her tracks. She will Pay someday, Not by my hand or by my vote on a Jury. God is my witness she will pay, and you keep defending her Holder, Pelosi, Obama, Reid someday someone will toss you in a padded cell for drinking too much FOOL-AID OK I get it now your are just a Obama Mouthpiece, hope he provides enough mouthwash to clean your breath…

        Mr.WEST is better then you and all the ones you spout off and protect. So HIT ME WITH YOUR BEST SHOT, Cause I will Debate you into the ground.

      • Yea, you’ve already lost. You went all wingnut and claimed that I supported people I don’t, and for which you had no basis for claiming.

        You think she committed a crime – list them for me. Give me the USCS cite for the section of the law she has violated. Give me the elements of that crime, and then explain how she has met all those elements. That’s how you debate someone has violated the law. You name crimes, you list elements, you match conduct to elements.

        So, Ms./Mr. Braggadocio, show us all how you debate.

        What you hid from, I note, is that West most certainly did lie to us (that or he’s a complete idiot.) The reason, you must certainly now know, these forms have different entries next to the same phrase is because that phrase is defined differently for each form.

        Can you at least demonstrate the intellectual integrity to admit there was nothing nefarious nor illegal in the IRS not “going after” organizations based on their Labor filings? Are you adult enough to do that?

      • wingnut applies to both sides. There are left and right wingnuts. Your sensativity to being called a wingnut — along with your hilarious refusal to debate on the issues and your equally laughable assumptions give you away. You live in the bubble. You have all these strongly held opinions for which you have no ability to explain, and when pressed, become childishly defensive. When conservatives like me go out and debate liberals with facts and cogent argument, we first have to to overcome the presumption that all on the right are like you.

        We don’t all believe Obama was born in Kenya, is a secret Muslim, favors Muslims, has started a race and religious war, has FEMA camps awaiting conservatives and takes trillion dollar vacations.

        We can oppose him on his policies and his actual acts. We want accountability for the IRS not-for-profit scandal, but don’t need to lie about other events at the IRS to get there.

        See the difference?

        Now, when I go out and debate libs about the IRS they are going to laugh at me and ask me why “conservatives” can’t read the basic instructions on a form.

        I have to clear the hurdle left behind by people like you and West before I can get into the substance of an issue. If I were a (D) I’d be here encouraging you to continue with your nonsense. That I am not is the best “give a away” that I am a True Conservative.

      • Being a Democrat lets me possibly vote in a primary to weaken a Leftist Liberal, Doesn’t mean I will vote that party in a General, it’s kind of been destroyed over the years..You want to call me names but you can’t defend the words without spouting Law that while I could look up if I felt I need to but for you, no my opinion is enough..

      • You have kept this going for over a day My points are made, My examples given, You couldn’t answer for me if you had to because you want to speak existential liberal gobbledygook Learner has a long track record of breaking IRS federal law to benefit the democratic party How about you admit that or would that be a deduction on your check?

      • Answer what? You claimed she is a criminal but refuse to identify what crimes she committed, what the elements of those crimes are and how her acts met those elements.

        You advocated suspending two key constitutional amendments, but when pressed wouldn’t explain why.

        Ask me a direct question and I’ll answer it. If you had some question that I missed in your meandering screed, I apologize. Try your question again, just leave off all the tin-foil hat stuff.

      • Thank you for the step in, he like most try to sound educated but then goes off on his defensive rant of the indefensible and gives himself away..When someone hides behind the color of office to subvert an election by targeting Conservatives? You wanna call names, I may not be a debate champ but this Liberal Fool-aid addict I don’t mind a good Laugh, we need it these days.. don’t you think??

      • I only listed a few I can come up with more but why waste my time you are ONLY interesting in defaming West, and making the IRS into a False idol.. I will pray for you.. I will continue to support this country against unstable liberals that are more interested in bring it down. You are Nothing and Conservative.. Bless your little pea pickin heart… Bet you love the idea of a corrupt IRS having our medical records too… as an EMT and Nurse I followed HIPPA something that now the IRS will probably mess up along with everything else..

        I put my faith in things that you will never understand Hope that consev’s like you never actually become Conservative in truth and fact other then pretense.

      • You actually didn’t list any crimes. You made a bunch of wild accusations.

        When you accuse someone of a crime you must (1) name the crime, (2) list the elements of the crime and (3) match the person’s conduct to the elements.

        Here, the woman, as part of the BUSH Administration, properly responded that the reporting lines were different. West didn’t have the courage to show you her response, largely one must assume because he knew it showed her doing her.

        Read the thread. The Bush Administration did nothing wrong by not pursuing the Unions. Each form had a different reporting requirement.

  8. FREEZE ALL of Her accounts, any of a spouse, child, parent, sibling ,co-worker, political crony and anyone she said Hello to for the last 20 years then someone will sing. Keep in mind, she is a lawyer and IRS agent so look at funds hidden overseas and then watch anyone that buys her so much as a roll of toilet paper until this is done.
    Then treat the same to pretend King Obama with his Hoochie MamaMoochelle, Ms Killery Clinton and her hubby he’s the one with his hand up someones skirt, Holder, Reid, Pelosi, don’t forget uncle Joe he’s the one looking for the gates of Hell on the map… Start treating the Players in this RICO/Ponzi scheme like the criminals they are and they will stop being so high and mighty and may possibly remember that they GOT THEIR MONEY from WE the PEOPLE and WE can demand a refund !!

    Remind them that NO ONE is above being Hung for Treason. There be Traitors there.

    • Why does the US Constitution offend you so much that you would go online and advocate the fifth and fourteenth amendments be suspended simply to appease your ignorance?

      Had Mr. West bothered to (1) read the article to which he linked or (2) called a tax lawyer he would have learned — and could have communicated to you — that just because the lines on the two forms have the same two-word identifier, that doesn’t mean they are the same. Go read the instructions for the forms, you will learn that each has a different description of what is to be included.

      This is the problem with people like Mr. West — they are deliberately passing on false information with the hope of fomenting distrust and civil unrest. The only question is whether he’s doing it deliberately or due to ignorance.

      • You want to educate me Fine I get it , I am NOT an attorney, they are the ones breaking the laws. I am just getting fed up with the lies BS the suspension of my rights while they look down and smirk at us at being better at being CROOKS. I admit that maybe my approach was harsh for someone that deserves the Constitutional protection but when someone subverts the Constitution commits crimes against the People and then want to duck behind “I’m not saying anything more”. I was taught to abide the Law to respect the process, and now we have some Puppeteer pulling the strings to tear down this Nation and they will get away with it unless they are treated as they are Collaborators and enemy combatants. They commit Treason and expect to walk away free because of money and Mouthpieces and it has to stop. You and I both know that if the funds don’t flow they will start singing but right now the wink wink we’ll cover your ass has let THIS Troll assist in subverting an election. Defrauding and defaming and doing it all with a You go girl from the White House, Maybe not Obama because he needs plausible deny ability, but someone took his idea and made it happen. If they can False Flag events to take away my 2nd Amendment, and curb our media with either play by our rules or we will not play and now we stand at the brink of another attack, a crash of our monetary system, and OH yes lets not forget an out right INVASION of our Country.. All because a Little man in a suit wanted to be King. You are right I don’t see someone that broke the Law knowingly for years as having FREE RIGHTS ANYMORE. She is a Convicted Felon if we just find where she hid her little blackmail em back book. You think I should bow to her. Let her waltz away with years of payoffs and fraud funds, Then throw in the Government package.. WHY NOT JUST BUY HER A TICKET so that she can live on the QEII top suite for the remainder of her life. The sad part.. with a violent felon you can actually get justice, with a white collar criminal you get Catch and Release. I AM SICK OF IT. FED UP and ready to assist in taking back this Nation and restoring Justice..So give them their Constitutional Rights.. I just Hope that one day the truth comes out and we will know just how deep the cancer of this administration goes.Then we have to correct the History books to back to what REALLY HAPPENED WHEN THE CROOK TOOK THE WHITE HOUSE FROM THE PEOPLE. I have read the Constitution you know that document that Obama uses as toilet paper.. One day it will return as the Law of the Land.

      • You’re advocating the abolition of two critical rights — you’re no conservative and you’re not even a good American. You don’t like the Constitution, so leave. Go find some country where the rule of law means nothing. Go somewhere where you can just make up stories, like West did here, and then send people to jail.

        Either you love, value and respect the Constitution, or you don’t. You don’t.

      • When I debate an idiot that hides like you do, call me names all you want.. I actually can stand behind my words and record without the silly name, and Org.. Cattle-prod of Enlightenment??? Do I think you are a True Conservative, Not a bit.. just a paid player for the Liberal idiots.. Tell me I don’t support or Love this country?? You are so full of it I can almost smell it via the computer go play where someone will buy your line of reverting to calling me names when you can’t defend the statements and ideals I put forward. I will let the numbers and my history define my veiws why don’t you do the same like I said I’ll debate a real person not a puppet..

      • It seems you’re running away from your previous post — and good on you for doing so. There was no law broken, as you claimed, and when pressed, you couldn’t find one.

        You’re full of hard opinions for which you have no articulatable rationale. What’s that feel like, to think you know everything, but when challenged, can’t produce a damn thing other than an opinion based on pure, blind partisanship?

  9. You know I get fed up with obominationites that want to sound big and spout how wrong we are.. yet they hide behind a false Name, cute little org like cattleprod when what they are is pure Bull Manure Spreaders.. They step in and oH no you are wrong Obama isn’t a crook , Pelsoi isn’t a botoxed out ding bat, Reid isn’t a land grabbing senile old troll Holder is doing a great job bring truth justice and the American way.. Yea and I just won 15 Million dollars a day on a lotto I never bought a ticket for.. So Mr TRU CONSERV… I guess that means Totally Rocking UP conservin the status quo.. When you wake from your fool-aid induced fog in 20 yrs look me up.. I’ll still be able to teach you a thing or to about respect, honor and justice something the folks you work for just don’t get it or care to as long as they get their perks…How is your golf game by the way?? since you just got back from a vacation..

  10. The statutes of limitation, will still be active in 2016, when an honest representative of the people will become President. Additionally, there will be the cases of Benghazi, Fast n Furious, Pedophiles as Ambassadors, Constitutionality of forced purchases of products, “selective prosecution”, the administrations relationship with the muslim brotherhood, the missing 8billion $$ from the state department, Repeal of NDAA, and on and on and on, ALL UP FOR ACTION. Rest assured, as long as we have a country in 2016, it will all come to bare!

    • You know I have little faith we will get someone brave enough not to oarden the usurper but he may throw some of his people under the bus on his way out.

  11. No not November…. but for sure in April. April 15th to be exact. On this day we should all send them an F-you postcard with no return address. Come on Allen call it for what it is. I will not vote for any party who continues to think they can prop up the existence of an agency that has the audacity to tell me I owe them money when I was NEVER provided with any direct goods or services them!!!!

    • Did that this year, plan on doing it the rest of my life too but I put a return address label on it I don’t hide who I am I own my words and opinions. Unlike the Lovely Tru Conserv who apparently needs a cattle prod of enlighten himself.. 2 days of BS is really ticking me off.. But you can’t cure stupid..

    • They should lose their status because they followed the law?

      Did you read this part?

      “We looked at the information you provided regarding organizations that report substantial amounts of political activity and lobbying expenditures on the DOL Form LM-2, but report little to no political expenditures on the Form 990 filed with the IRS.”

      “We believe this difference in reporting does not necessarily indicate that the organization has incorrectly reported to either the DOL or the IRS”

      ““The Form LM-2 does not separate this reporting from the reporting of lobbying expenditures,” she wrote. “Furthermore, even if section 501(c)(5) labor organizations were required to report their lobbying expenditures, the amount required to be reported on Form LM-2 includes activity, such as attempting to influence regulations, that is not required to be reported as lobbying, as the IRS limitations apply to legislative lobbying.”

      There’s no story here, but if it were a story, it would be about the Bush Administration because everything she did was when she worked for Bush. All of this is from 2005-2007.

      Still think it’s a scandal and that somehow Obama is responsible? Maybe this was part of the plan to get the secret Kenyan into place … she’s a mole, a plant … she’s been registered as a (R) for so long as part of her cover!

      This is why true conservatives like me hate fake conservatives like West so much. True conservatives recognize Obama’s real failings and can go after him on those facts while guys like West have to resort to phony scandals designed to run down the US and make the greatest nation on Earth look bad.

      Mark my words, West is no patriot.

      • I guess you are an IRS defender to the end… Well defend but She will face a Jury one day will you be willing to defend her then??

      • You do realize you post makes no sense whatsoever, yes? As for West, he was kicked out of the Army and would have served time in a federal prison but for his calling in high-placed friends to pull strings. I don’t know about you, but I’m tired of people like West getting away with crimes because of cronyism.

        I’m not defending the IRS, I’m writing specifically about a series of events that occurred in 2005-2007 dealing with IRS and Labor Department filings made to the Bush Administration and responded to by a Bush Administration employee.

        Will you at least show you have the intellectual decency to acknowledge that there is no scandal in what the Bush Administration did with the Unions in 2005-2007?

      • Unions and Bush? Nothing compared to Obama and Unions you want to pick 2 years vs 6 years?? I guess you have me on your cell to make sure you get the last word or just stick around wanting to say that everyone is evil except Learner Obama and the IRS.. talk to me about the Obama Family getting fast tracked status, Muslim brotherhood money vs a group wanting to true the vote .. Bush and West They at least were and are patriots.. You are comparing an apple to a spoiled bushel under Obama he has been breaking laws and directing things for his whole life since he told his school friends he was an African prince.. plueeze just stop the BS and Return when you actually can say something that admits that the IRS and Learner did commit crimes, because if you can’t you prove MY POINTS and I am trying to get thru my mail, and you are spouting Holder Learner and IRS BS and it isn’t Bachelor of Science..
        just stop the Fool-aid drinking and sober up..

      • Again, you’re not making sense.

        This article by West is about Lerner allegedly ignoring union political expenditures between 2005 and 2007. At that time she was a member of the Bush Administration and was following Bush guidelines.

        West didn’t print her explanation of the Bush guidelines because that explanation completely exonerates both her and Bush. (Though, let’s not kid anyone, West was hoping his readers would be so dumb as to think she did this as part of the Obama Administration. Crazy, huh, no one is that dumb, right?)

        West didn’t give you the full story because West isn’t so good on telling the truth. (HINT: that’s part of the reason he got kicked out the Army.)

      • Ok, Obviously you get PAID to try to defend Learner and demonize West while claiming to be Conservative. Debbie Wassermann Schultz must be proud you earned your check. Let me borrow your Cattle prod of Enlightenment and enlighten you for the last time because I do not have time to EDUCATE a STUPID IRS Defender of the Faith who simply can not UNDERSTAND that as a retired Nurse and EMT I can’t Fix your stupidity I can sedate it , lock it in a padded room, but not cure it.
        Lerner chose to NOT act on a clear UNION Based effort during a MIDTERM election for the DEMOCRATS to FILL the Legislature bodies with Democrats.. You want me to say she did that at Bush’s Administrations urging.. Sorry DumDum, Just Proves FOR THE LAST TIME SHE HAD IT IN TO SUPPORT DEMOCRATS against Conservative Republicans.. Now since YOUR BOSS pays you to call me uneducated, and Un American, Anti constitutional etc etc ad-nauseam, I will let you have the last word.. Grow up TYPE IN I GET THE LAST WORD and then sign off two days of listening to your BS is giving me a headache and keeping me from doing things I need to do without pay.. If you want to ATTACK WEST I suggest You do so directly. He was honorably discharged, served his country in a war zone and you can’t always play nice when you have to watch your back every second. I will not Judge his service that has already been done, now the only opinion that counts is of a far higher power then any on this earth, and I tend to think it will be welcome home you earned your seat at my table. I will support him as far as he wants to go, because my US ARMY Lt. Col. Brother and I were taught that you RESPECT those that defend the right of IGNORANT Illogical paid surfers that just spout party line to say so, no matter how dumb you are. You want to try to tell me I am Un American and do not support this country again and You and I will take this to the big pages because I will not go quietly into the night tucking tail to run I have more Pride , Morals and Honor then the ones you defend and the idiotic you can’t out talk me because I can throw in race cards and other things to shut her up..LIKE HECK If you want to continue your attacks come do so on Facebook.. Show the world that you are as fictional as your ideals and that you can not win a simple two person discussion without attacking.. I gave you once then twice Now I am Just Fed up with LIBERALS that RACE BAIT, DEFEND the Indefensible acts of Criminals, and Feel superior when they spout the last pearls of wisdom..that actually prove my point yet can’t seem to get the picture.. I was cleaning those pearls outta bedpans 30+ yrs ago..
        So again HIT ME WITH YOUR BEST SHOT AND LIKE ME SUPPORT THE SUBJECT.just saying I’m wrong isn’t going to cut it.. use that cattle prod on your self because your type of Enlightenment is what I have fought for years to shut up and will for many more.

      • You haven’t given me anything … what are you rambling on about? I’m paid – not! Are you?

        I’m just point out the truth, and that causes you to lose your mind and post gibberish.

        Just as you fantasize that I must be a paid operative, you look at her work in 2007 (which was post the mid-term elections) to whine that she was a secret-squirrel, registered as a (R), but secretly working not for the Bush Administration who paid her salary and told her what to do, but for the (D) party that had yet to nominate its 2008 candidate.

        See why I can’t take you seriously?

      • TruConserv djmc993150 • a day ago
        Oy … It’s not that they had no political spending, it’s that they had no political expenditures as defined on THAT form.

        Prove it.

  12. you I’m also conservative and how many more times do you have to say it before they’ll, or anybody will get it??? Damn irritating to read!!

    • Aw he needs someone on his side, so stand up for him… with your history of 4 comments.. maybe you’ll learn things defending a Christian Conservative like me more then an IRS puppet like Conserv of the great cattle prod of Enlightenment of his. That will allow you to have an opinion and him as long as he comes out of the closet and actually supports something worth supporting Learner and the IRS?? seriously Supporting them??? oh wow.. talk about picking the wrong side.

    • TruConserv djmc993150 • a day ago
      Oy … It’s not that they had no political spending, it’s that they had no political expenditures as defined on THAT form.

      Ask him to prove this statement as it implies he knows EXACTLY how their funds were spent and claimed.

      • Poor child – I was explaining the position of the Union, made apparent by their filing, and the position of the Bush Administration, made apparent by its response to the question, it’s promotion of the employee who answered the question and that it took no actions against those Unions that were referred for investigation.

        You’re confused because you think I’m authenticating the Union’s spending and that the Bush Administration confirmed that spending. I’m not, and only the most mendacious of commentators could read my comments that way.

        I’m explaining the position of the Union and the Bush Administration — and trying to help you understand why feigning outrage that the Bush Administration didn’t go after the Unions simply based on a discrepancy found on two forms is a fool’s position.

        I know, in the Fringe Bubble World you live in, this is scary. Someone wrote an article against a person you’ve been trained to hate. It rocks your conscience to learn that the article is bogus. You then go on to play a desperate game of “gotcha,” taking quotes out of context, pretending not be able to read, demonstrating poor reading skills — and then fundamentally lying and saying you’re not on the side of the author, you’re just against those who oppose the author.

        You’re a troll.

      • Still havent proved your statement or even come close.

        Still cant stop lying about / completely misunderstanding my entire point or any post i made. Great job, at least you are consistent in your stupidity, lying, and denial.

      • I fully proved my statement — you’re just too deep in the bubble to admit it. Troll on, dear child, troll on.

      • You proved your statement just as much as Johnny Cochran proved OJ was innocent.
        Its awesome when you can rely on the perfection of others to claim you have proven something. Because the government nor their decisions are fallible nor are people in any way corrupt, certainly not organizations that use Mob like tactics and have proven they will do anything to force people to give them money.

        Just like you proved any of the numerous statements you claimed i made without actually quoting me or point to a single statement i made that backs up any of your half wit claims.

      • Pot meet kettle.

        Heres a little assignment for you. Count and look at the # of times and in what context i even talk about Lerner. Than compare them to your many MANY attempts to tell me what I said about her.

      • Pot. Kettle. Black.

        You’ve demonstrated laughable reading comprehension and pulled quotes out of context to play an immature game of “gotcha” that has failed miserably.

        You claim you’re not defending the West article, you’re just not agreeing with those who attack it.

        No one, not a single person, thinks you’re being honest when you play that game.

        You failed. You tried to make it look like this story was something other than a sham and you failed.

      • No “little boy” once again you are wrong and once again doing the same small minded little games.

        “You tried to make it look like this story was something other than a sham”

        Believe it or not “little boy” its possible to discuss one aspect of a story without inferring the whole story is valid. Your small little mind has been fixated with Lerner and this story the whole time and two forms which I couldnt care less about any of them. Nor did my ORIGINAL POST that YOU railed against even mention them. My ORIGINAL POST if you took a step back from the fetish you seem to have for Lerner was actually IF YOU READ IT against PARTISAN EXTREMISM BY BOTH SIDES. The kind of stupidity you are going down. And because after countless posts you still dont get it, I will spell it out for you too. Aside from my original post, my FIRST response to you was on ONE POINT AND I HAVE CARRIED THAT POINT THROUGHOUT – unlike you. The UNIONS LIED ON THEIR IRS FORM. As they always do, as they are by definition corrupt I nor anyone EVER said one form equaled another, I never said Lerner did anything wrong with this particular case, I never said the any of the hundreds of things you said i did and incompetently and ignorantly tried to claim. YOU MADE ALL THAT UP because YOU HAVE SOME WEIRD FETISH FOR LERNER. And thats fine, you can write her a love letter and do whatever. You can keep railing about how i failed to prove lerner did this or that. NONE of what you say i “failed to do” was i EVER TRYING TO DO DIP SH*T. Heres an idea – grow up little boy.

  13. Tru Conserv
    someone that wants to spout his veiws and Hatred of West and defense of Learner from sites that do not give his name his ideals or any sense of who it is.. So considering the number suporting me vs you I win You loose so stick a fork in it this is DONE. I can’t fight a battle of intellegence with a brainless one track mind automiton that can’t admit they are in anyway wrong or they would short out their circuits. So attack WEST all you want just know that some support him, and will continue to. I know that just twists your guts sorry.. You, Like Obama blame it all on Bush.. Learner has a long record of abusing her office and I am done trying to point out over 19 + times that you are defending the defnsless. She is a Crook she will eventually go to Jail. I have other things to do then answer your repeated attempts to discount what I say. You can’t even move to facebook to support your fight because it’s the same as here you have no Identity.. so since you don’t exist.. BYE BYE wanna continue I’ll ask that all statements on this ISSUE by both of us be removed so that no one can say anything on it again.. I will not smear a War VET, I will NOT blame BUSH for Ms LEARNER’s propensity to commit crimes under the authority of Office.

    • You promised me you’d “debate me into the ground” and then you ran and started posting about me all over the place.

      That’s not how Conservatives do things.

      We confront, we discuss, we debate, we admit errors.

      I’m here on a lunatic fringe site because I want to see if maybe you guys — so far, far removed from the Conservative movement — have anything of value that I would do well to learn. In some threads, there’s a lot for me to learn. In this thread, not so much.

      • And like EVERY PROTECTIONIST LIBERAL, YOU FELL BACK You said that my answers were no answers.. you called every one on this page stupid for not backing Learner, Blaming Bush, Admit she has a long history of commitin crimes, and when all else failed you attacted WEST.. No one can debate , discuss or ever make a point with a rabid Fanatic that attacks off point.. I have 20 + points agreeing my basic points and you have what 3 ?? What do you feel you Won?? I declared three days of your sniping behind a hidden ID, 21 email comment clogging my in box and today I ACTUALLY HAD THINGS TO DO and just got back on checking mail before bed.. Liberal double speak mouthpieces are why The White House is OcCUPIED TERRITOTY. learner went out of her way to attack REAL conservatives, then leaked the story so she could oh my look what Cinncinati did.. We have had 6 years of lies, cover ups and liberals that are as rabid as any terrorist that ALWAYS REVERT TO Race, Sexism, Crazy loonitic Fringe.. to then sit smug say see told you.. I won the Debate Discussion and the points.. Go crawl back into whatever anal cavity you came from to sit on I don’t know are you the WEST DEBUNKER OR THE IRS SCANDAL and they are as Phoney as you being a Conservative, and anyone that seeks what the truth about her and her antics.. You want to blame Bush Like get real.. Bush would actually have someone falsify reports and records to have the Demonicrats win a simple majority, NO LANDSLIDE just a little bit.. You spout the BS and call me names.. I am going to bed I do NOT have time TONIGHT FOR FOOL-AID Overdosed High as a kite Liberal peole that think that a CATTLE PROD OF ENLIGHTENMENT IS GOING TO GET YOU ANYTHING.. Stick it where no one would want to look, So long GOOD NIGHT.. I am quite sure you will be back tommorrow when I get online.. I am tired enough I am not going to spell check so feel free to attack my education if you find Typos.. I still say that YOU are Full of nothing but HOT air and can’t defend her except on points that do not matter.

      • In other words, you have nothing to offer in the form of debate and the best you can do is claim that because you got more “upvotes” that you’ve bested me.

        That’s bubble echo-chamber logic, but it’s not real logic.

        Have a good night.

  14. Wow…if I was in a union and they were giving that much money to political hacks I’d stop paying dues…if these unions care for their members so much then give their families this money back….unbelievable!

  15. TruConserv djmc993150 • a day ago
    Oy … It’s not that they had no political spending, it’s that they had no political expenditures as defined on THAT form.

    PROVE IT. And I am going to continue to ask until you do and continue to make it obvious you are making claims you cant back up.

    • Silly boy – I was stating the Union position and the response accepted by the Bush Administration.

      Taking quotes out of context may pass for intelligent debate within the bubble, but anyone is free to read our discussion and realize how you’ve become unhinged.

      The Union position is evidenced by the fact that they reported no spending on the form. The Bush Administration’s position is evidenced by the response provided by it’s appointee and by the fact that its Dallas office took no action against the Unions, despite some of those Unions being referred for investigation.

      I’ve given you the forms. If you have basic math and reading comprehension skills you now know, but pretend you don’t, that the forms have different reporting formulations and that Lerner was right – a variance in what is reported on the two forms is not proof of bad behavior by the Unions.

      This is only a story if you can’t read or you can’t do simple math.

      Which problem are you having?

      • “The Union position is evidenced by the fact that they reported no spending on the form. ”
        Al Capone didnt report a whole lot of income either… So I guess he’s ok? So everyone is completely accurate on their taxes, so why do we have auditors???

        “I’ve given you the forms. If you have basic math and reading comprehension skills you now know, ”
        Perfectly happy to do the math, please provide the Unions books that you must have to be able to claim they have made zero reportable political spending.

      • Al Capone had one form to fill out. He was investigated. He went to jail.

        Here, there are two forms, with different reporting formulations. (I trust you’re finally on board that Lerner was correct when she stated that, yes?)

        What is your point – that every Union and every filer needs to be investigated, so Lerner is proven to be soft on Unions because she didn’t?

        You’re so all over the place playing a laughable game of “gotcha,” taking quotes out of context, that I have no clue what you’re rambling on about.

        What is your position, other than to troll and make a fool of yourself?

  16. Oh the pearls of enlightenment you spout…”TRU CONSERV with his Cattle Prod of ENLIGHTENMENT.”. You say No One will take me seriously because I just will not give you your trophy win of the you were debate team captain in high school.. You seem to think that attacking me, the article or West somehow Makes you The ONLY voice of reason in the world and you have sat on this site since this was posted sniping at everyone that dares to disagree with your view I know what you are, everyone else has your number too by now so continue on DRINK ALL THE FOOL-AID You want I will not join you. I hope you Drown in the administration’s efforts to control everything anti-investigation of their numerous treasonous crimes, lies, and just plain stupidity. Since you dismiss everyone’s opinion but your own and there is no question.. no doubt what you are.. you hide and snipe and then sit back and smirk like the IRS a$$hole that didn’t tell the truth about how she was dumping all her damning emails and other evidence in an attempt to subvert not an election as she did in 2012 but Justice for everything and that she obviously has a long history of lawlessness… I can’t have a discussion with a paid Mouthpiece and you have proved that is what you are.. call me names, try to dismiss my every word.. YOU can NOT change MY mind and pestering me does not make you RIGHT filling my inbox with your vitriol is just plain harassment.. Your Colors fly HIGH and they aren’t the stars and stripes.. Traitors , Terrorist and spokesmen that spout party line defense JUST CAN NOT BE REASONED WITH or made to see the truth. That is why you need your Cattle Prod of Enlightenment..Maybe one day you’ll stick it where I m sure most would like to suggest.. The day you Enlighten me hiding behind your NON IDENTITY is the day that I have like many of the supporters your employer or just your attitude will be the day I vote to continue the destruction of America you would have to make me vote from the grave which someone attempted to do with my Grand Mother who died in ’79, they just screwed up because she had been a teacher there and principal of the high school and someone called the sheriff because some little old black lady tried voting with her name and info. So I will support TRUE THE VOTE that Learner stopped from being able to get funding and all the other groups that wanted to stop the Obamanation you support so diligently and you respond with No one takes me Seriously.. I don’t take you seriously. You are one of those that have damaged this country so badly, the fact that you defend it all just makes you a collaborator, not a conservative.

  17. I have the perfect patch for folks like tru conserve..states “When I want your opinion I’ll remove the duct tape” but since he is a fictional character I can’t give it to him..


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here