The GOP Want The IRS To Target The Tea Party

The Tea Party is an existential threat to the establishment Republicans.

RUSH LIMBAUGH –  “That is a serious charge.   That is a very, very serious charge, that the Republican establishment is aligned with Obama and is okay with Obama using the IRS to investigate [i.e., illegitimately break the kneecaps of] the Tea Party. But it’s believable, because we know the Republican establishment, the political class in Washington, is spreading the word that they are not gonna criticize Hillary, it isn’t gonna happen, and we shouldn’t, either.”

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Conspiracy ?, Decepticons, IRS, Notorious Liars, Tea Party, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

42 Responses to The GOP Want The IRS To Target The Tea Party

  1. justfactsplz says:

    Spineless cowards. They are so afraid of the Tea Party interfering with their DC business as usual agenda. They should be thrown out of the Republican Party for not upholding conservative values. Yep, throw their sorry arses out and let them be the liberals they aspire to be.

    Like

    • LetJusticePrevail" says:

      It’s time the American people realize that the two parties, Republican and Democrat, are (in principle) one in the same and that the only things that separates them are the symbols they wear on their lapels, and the names on the bank accounts into which they stuff the taxpayers’ dollars.

      They both operate like gangs, but instead of wearing red or blue bandanas, they parade around with Donkeys. And either one uses the law, which they have weaponized, to rob the public blind. Our government is overrun with criminals who have collected themselves into two organizations purely for the sake of the relative safety their numbers provide, and have reached a truce between themselves, just like the various mafia families reached a truce so they could operate below the radar, and carve up the “turf” to run their rackets.

      And that’s why the national party leaders, the real power that control the purse strings, not their “elected” front men, operate behind the scenes, but determine who is elected, and what is done.

      And that’s why they fear the upstart Tea Party. Because it’s grass roots supporters make donations that fund their candidates, keeping them just beyond the grasp of the existing power structure. THAT is why they need the weaponized IRS to hamper Tea Party organizations.

      Like

      • Lou says:

        they are both bought off LJP. don’t think that the Tea Party isn’t funded either though. politics and money in politics have ruined this country. I was so excited when I heard of the Tea Party, but it quickly became clear that they were funded by the fossil fuel industry. So far I love Ted Cruz, but the moment he talks about how climate change is a hoax, I’ll know he’s bought off as well. THis country truly needs to go back to our Constitution, but there are other agendas. follow the money. both parties are bought off by different factions.

        Like

        • Sibyl S. says:

          Climate Change is a hoax, a politically invented myth, propaganda, lie, globalist tax/power scheme, fraud.

          Like

        • stella says:

          You are watching those evil Koch Brothers, right? Lou, there is no taking money out of politics completely, because you can’t compete if you do. And Sibyl is right – climate is the new way for Socialists and Communists to get control and money. That’s it. It is hubris to believe that man can control the climate in any meaningful way. The earth has and will survive assaults much more serious than anything that man can do.

          Like

          • Lou says:

            I’d like to see the world move onto cleaner forms of energy. like I said, I think Ted Cruz will be the best candidate for POTUS. the fossil fuel energy doesn’t want competition. they want to remain a monopoly. solar energy is now becoming competition, as I saw you posted the link about the birds being killed by the heatwaves. I hope they can fix that problem. I’d also like the US to produce energy, but the Gulf Oil Spill worries me also. I don’t want that crap pouring out on my streets. Obama is a big supporter of big oil as well, so don’t be fooled.

            Like

            • Menagerie says:

              No industry wants to die out. Solar panels may be great on individual structures, but as an industry, competitively producing a quality product to compete head on in the market place, they have a long way to go to convince investors and buyers. The government should not be playing kingmaker in the so called green power industry. Let them evolve and become strong and competitive, or let them fall to a better alternative.

              Like

              • ctdar says:

                American ingenuity of the free market.

                Like

              • Lou says:

                I’m a big fan of our founder Alexander hamilton, and have read “The Report on Manufacturers” (spinc) he’s outlined in detail how to get a manufacturing base in the US.. an established industry cannot be competed against because there are unfair advantages an established industry has (as well as today’s tax breaks which wasn’t given to corporations outside of the US when our Constitution was founded). the government is supposed to give a boost to create an American based market. Article 1 Section 8 (To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations)
                according to Annenberg
                The most important of the specific powers that the Constitution enumerates is the power to set taxes, tariffs and other means of raising federal revenue, and to authorize the expenditure of all federal funds
                http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/pages.aspx?name=article-i-section-8&AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1

                Like

            • drdoct says:

              Sorry Lou but that’s not credible. Solar competition? In what world? There is a reason oil/coal/nat gas get the support and it’s because with the exception of nuclear, it’s what works. Electric is crap and anyone who has neutrally researched it has figured it out. Do I wish it would work? yes. Does it? Not even when running at peak efficiency. Add on top of that the battery problem and you’ve got a money pit. Which is what Obama did. He threw money at the solar pit. Money we didn’t have. Fossil fuels are a reality. A very necessary reality since it’s the only real power generator.

              I wish there was a way we could lay out a few solar panels or even a mini wind mill and power our house and cars. Right now it’s more like a small boost to the grid than anything and that’s when conditions are 100%. Honestly, I wish we could all buy little mini nuke reactors for our houses what could power all our needs for 50 yrs. But a move off the grid and trying to depend on these green technologies usually ends up being a move back to frontier days. I would love to live like that, but only if it could be in a place where the next family was miles away. Suburban living like that would be purgatory. My goal is to one day get away from the internet and civilization with all it’s ilk and get back to the basics. It’s something I’ve researched a lot and for a while it looked like land was the answer. Now I’m thinking more like a boat. Who knows. But if there was a way to have power for a fridge/freezer and lights and electricity for tools (have to fix things yourself out there), then I would be interested. Right now even with 50-$100000 buying all the gear… it doesn’t work reliably like fossil fuels does.

              Like

            • texan59 says:

              Lou – I’ve been reading some of your posts the last few days and I’m somewhat intrigued by the divergence of your thought process. You like Ted Cruz, but you hate the oil business and you are a big green-energy proponent. The two don’t mix, much like oil and water. Green energy is only alive today, for the most part because gov’t. is holding it’s head above water. They are attempting to force it upon us by making you and me pay for it. Thus far, it has not been found to be practical, either in it’s cost or application. Ted Cruz is all about the gov’t. getting out of the way and letting the marketplace decide. I’m all for someone putting up solar panels and windmills on their own property if they WANT to. I’m not all for paying 20-30% more for my electricity because you want me to.

              As for the damage from an oil spill, none of us likes to see the sea-life harmed. None of us is for dirty water, but are you aware that harvesting in the gulf is pretty much back to normal. Are you aware that there was a reason that no one could find the majority of the oil spilled in the gulf. The reason is that the oils comes out of the ground and goes back into the ground. Are you aware that millions of gallons of crude oil seep out of the ground every day naturally. I’m attaching a link that addresses some of that in just one area. The article states that somewhere between 8 and 80 times the amount of oil spilled from the Exxon Valdez seeps out of the ground near CA. I’m not here to change your mind, just present some facts. There are many more articles out there that address this phenomenon.

              http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090513130944.htm

              Like

              • Lou says:

                texan, thanks for the respectful response. I believe that we moved on from coal to oil and that was progress. I think it’s time for the US and the world to move on to cleaner more affordable energies, and an energy that can be produced in the US.
                I’m having some differences with some on here, because they are preaching the Free Market. The Free Market isn’t in our Constitution, but Article 1 Section 8 clearly states that trade should be regulated. Also, in the Report on Manufactures written by our founder Alexander Hamilton clearly states that a newer industry cannot compete against an established monopoly, and should have government intervention if it will support manufacturing in the US. here is the link on the trade issue. http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/pages.aspx?name=article-i-section-8&AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1 we need to produce energy, and a newer industry cannot compete against an established industry.

                Like

                • texan59 says:

                  By that logic, we should still be making buggy whips. Henry Ford built his company by investing (risking) his and investors capital. The Commerce Clause has been bastardized ever since the Wickard v. Filburn decision back in the 30’s. We do not currently have a monopoly on energy production. There were electric vehicles in production in the early 1900’s. They went out of business because they were not practical. Just like Packard and Studebaker and hundreds of other car builders. If you want to further energy options, support the research, but when a company like Solyndra is up and running in the market, it’s not my job to make sure they stay in business. With all of the top-notch engineering schools we have in this country, why haven’t they come up with a cost-efficient, practical alternative. What we have seen in the last five years, and no doubt before that has been nothing but a giant money-laundering operation where the gov’t. gives millions of dollars to some company, their executives funnel thousands, if not millions of dollars back to the politicians who gave them the money. Ask yourself why Dianne Feinstein stays in the Senate. Her hubby has been awarded multi-millions of $$$ to work on gov’t. projects like selling post office buildings and most recently, his construction company is getting scads of money to aid in building CA’s “high-speed” rail project.

                  Like

            • Partyzant says:

              Lou,
              Large energy companies are in it for profit. when solar is profitable, they will do a LOT of solar. they are in business first, they just happen to sell energy. It makes no sense to shun a competitive sector. they actually make money if they can get solar working, because by policy the US is starved for refineries built to modern standards. Costs a lot up front with long lead time to build a refinery due to EPA.

              Like

          • Partyzant says:

            like calderas, meteorite impacts, glaciation…. the great iron catastrophe, the slow build up of oxygen…. change is continiual, nothing new here.

            Like

        • LetJusticePrevail" says:

          “I was so excited when I heard of the Tea Party, but it quickly became clear that they were funded by the fossil fuel industry.”

          Lou, is there any direct evidence that the fossil fuel industry is a large donor to Tea Party conservatives?

          Like

        • sundance says:

          Climate change IS a hoax Lou.

          It sounds like you have a personal agenda that you wish the Tea Party would take up. There is an adverse, emotional, almost autonomic sense in all of your responses about the Tea Party. Perhaps their unwillingness to advance a position that is important to you is the nucleus for your visceral bitterness continually expressed toward the organization known as the Tea Party….

          It appears you have either had a bad individual experience, or you are frustrated because they won’t take up an issue that is obviously very emotional for you. You are quite passionate about your belief in climate change.

          Regardless, IMHO climate change is a hoax Lou.

          Like

        • Partyzant says:

          pssst… Lou… climate change IS a hoax….
          the facts and name of the “crisis” change to suit. Your beachfront property is safe.

          Like

      • justfactsplz says:

        Yes they both are one and the same basically.

        Like

    • auscitizenmom says:

      I think we need to support the Tea Party, if for no other reason than we have to. We have to have a change.

      Like

      • LetJusticePrevail" says:

        I agree that we need a change, but not that we should accept change merely for change, itself. That’s not to say that I don’t like what I hear of the Tea Party, because I DO like what I hear from them, especially their willingness to oppose the uncontrolled spending in Washington. But, like in anything else, caution has to be used here. How many times have candidates presented themselves a solutions to one problem, only to cause damage in a number of other areas?

        The law of unintended consequences comes to mind here, so I have to ask: Do Tea Party candidates have solid, well rounded, platforms that address the majority of issues coherently, or do they run on single issues, and are otherwise inept? That’s why I want to see more Tea Party candidates present their political philosophy in full, and present credentials that show they have the capability to perform once they get in office. Just tacking on the appellation “Tea Party Conservative” is not enough, no matter how much disdain I have for the Democratic or Republican parties.

        Like

      • justfactsplz says:

        Yes, we do. That is our only chance to turn this country around.

        Like

  2. Aslan's Girl says:

    Is this why Issa’s investigation went nowhere?!

    Like

  3. ZurichMike says:

    The GOP’s intransigence will divide the right of center vote. There may be a few Tea Party victories in the 2014, but you may quote me: The Democrats will win in 2016.

    Like

    • ZurichMike says:

      Wrong word; not “intransigence” but “stupidity” or “megalomania” would be better.

      Like

      • texan59 says:

        I wasn’t sure what those $.25 words were, but I sure do understand stupidity. 😉

        Like

      • Partyzant says:

        ZM,
        Although it is unpleasant, your analysis is sound and fact based. We are about to find out about the real wilderness unless the “kompromat” files get opened up and soon.
        I do not know if the nation will remain intact for long after the regime finalizes entrenching. Hollow state, definitely. Balkanization, possibly.

        Like

    • LetJusticePrevail" says:

      I believe you are correct when you say that “the GOP’s megalomania will divide the right of center vote” and that “there may be a few Tea Party victories in 2014” but have to add that your prediction that “The Democrats will win in 2016” will only hold true if nothing changes between now and then. Attitudes in America are changing, and will continue to change throughout the next two years. And, I’ll add, that the GOP might just realize that their only hope of survival is to move farther to the right by embracing the Tea Party, rather than attacking it.

      And, even if 2016 proves to be a victory for the Democrats, it might also be a victory for the Tea Party, as Republican voters realize the GOP establishment has completely abandoned conservatism. They might decide it’s better to drink a little Tea than to boil in a vat of Kool-Aid.

      Like

  4. IFoundMyVoice says:

    Well it will be a nice change of pace if Hilary wins. Anyone who criticized Obama was a racist, Hilary critics will be sexist.
    Imagine if we had a black, female president? It would be liberal civil war. “They are protesting Madam President’s policy because she’s a woman…” “NO, NO, NO they are protesting because she’s BLACK…”
    “Look, you jerk, I marched in the 70’s for the ERA, this is male politics as usual against the feminine!”
    “No, idiot, I marched in the 60’s and the criticism is ONLY because she’s African American!”

    “FEMALE!”
    “BLACK!”
    “FEMALE!”
    “BLACK!”

    And this liberal screech fest would erupt if a conservative reacted to this imagined president invading Canada, outlawing dairy products, or making all Wednesdays Federal holidays. “You wouldn’t call it irrational, unconstitutional or illegal if she were a WHITE MALE!”

    (“Don’t drag Nixon into this! Those were the old days!”)

    Like

    • libby says:

      On many occasions, I have declared that the GOP sold men down the river, over and over and over again (its how we have turned into such a matriarchal/gynocentric society.
      .
      Thomas Sowell – “When people get used to preferential treatment, equal treatment seems like discrimination.”
      .
      He didnt say this or that ethnic group of people. And he didnt say this or that gender.
      Simply, when people get used to PREFERENTIAL treatment, equal treatment seems like discrimination.
      .
      And thus, we have “The war on women” where women who used to get extra special treatment are beign asked to handle mere equal treatment. Those poor blakcs for the last five or so years, some folks have dared to ask them to handle equal treatment (and they get real upset that they are being discriminated against.
      .
      To me, the GOP has been a bunch of sell outs of men for many decades now (more people are aware of it, I guess).
      .
      I know I was not welcomed in any fashion for my observation that the GOP had worked in concert with the dems to remove rights for men so women could have the vast majority of rights. The pendulum swings according to its own whims

      Like

  5. texan59 says:

    Ask yourself this – why haven’t King Karl and his henchmen had any problems if you have any doubts about this.

    Like

  6. dsb steve says:

    I’ll take Mitch McConnell over Obama or Clinton any day. I don’t like the GOP leadership. I think they need to push states rights. And they never had a GOP solution to health care for the working poor. But our side should focus on ourselves. Getting good, articulate candidates to run for office who represent our views.

    Like

    • Sentient says:

      McConnell outed himself on June 11, 2013 when he voted for cloture on the gang of eight open borders amnesty. He (as most Republicans) voted along with Al Franken, Barbara Boxer and Chuck Schumer. McConnell only votes conservative (like when he voted against S744 two weeks later) once he’s sure his vote will have no effect. Go Matt Bevin!

      Like

  7. LetJusticePrevail" says:

    “Getting good, articulate candidates to run for office who represent our views.”

    Before that can be done, we need to define what “we” and “our views” truly are. That has been the failure of the GOP for decades, and (in part) is the failure of Conservatives even today. Instead of clearly defining ourselves, we have allowed the establishment GOP, and even the left to define our positions (and candidates) with rhetoric, hyperbole and vitriol. The public has been left with the viewpoint that the Dems are the ones who plan to actually “do” anything, and the GOP (and especially the Tea Party) are obstructionists who rail “against” everything, but offer no constructive solutions to what the public views as vital issues.

    The debate over ObamaCare is a perfect example. While the Tea Party has fought to block implementation of this financially disastrous policy (without sany support form the GOP establishment sell outs) the Dems (particularly Obama) have refused to negotiate with any degree of honesty and sold the lofo voters on a fiscally irresponsible program, and ridiculed opposition to it by correctly pointing out that opponents to ObamaCare have offered no workable alternative.

    But, the reality is that the very “need” for healthcare insurance reform was entirely manufactured to begin with, something which the opponents to Obama Care failed to clearly point out. Once the need for insurance reform was entrenched in the minds of the American voters, that left opponents in the impossible position of needing to present an alternative plan to fix something that never needed fixing in the first place. Healthcare insurance was never the problem, but healthcare costs (among other things) are. And yet, Obama has played a “trump card” by suggesting the problem with the GOP (and Tea Party). And, in that way, the entire opposition to ObamaCare was ridiculed and marginalized in one fell swoop. They are the “Party of No” in the eyes of many voters, and mainly due to their own fault by not pointing out the obvious at the very beginning: ObamaCare is a fiscally dangerous socialist policy that risks not only complete fiscal catastophe, but also the destruction of the foundation of our democratic republic. For some reason, everyone in Washington is completely averse to even using the word “socialism” ever since the end of the McCarthy era.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s