The worst part of this is that we have to watch John Boy crying in public over this "rabid torture policy" leveled against the T-baggers.

Great post Brad.

Alex Seitz-Wald at Salon added to the list Brad discusses in the article:

The troubling feature, however, is the extent to which so many in the media have lost sight of the fact that the fraudulent utilization of 501(c)(3) status by front groups which are funded and controlled by extreme right wing billionaires like the Koch brothers is an appropriate target of IRS scrutiny --- so long as that scrutiny is based upon appropriate law enforcement concerns that are not limited to the political affiliation of the group being investigated.

Instead of stressing that fact, the Obama administration has repeated the same cowardly behavior it has resorted to whenever it has come within range of an assault by the right wing noise machine. Instead of pointing out that abuse of 501(c)(3) status is an appropriate subject, as it did with Shirley Sherrod and with ACORN, the administration's first move is to throw IRS officials under the bus.

Hence, we find the same Attorney General who openly endorsed "too big to jail," immediately threatening to prosecute IRS officials while making no mention of the illicit misuse of 501(c)(3) status by partisan right wing billionaire front-groups who have no right to label themselves as charitable organizations.

Let's just look at the phone record grab:

The Obama administration grabbed a wide swath of phone records covering a two month period and twenty phones used by (potentially) over 100 journalists and editors. This includes the general AP switchboard phone number, a shared fax line, and the main AP line in the House of Representatives press gallery.

The news cooperative's top executive called it a "massive and unprecedented intrusion" into how news organizations gather the news.

In a letter of protest sent to Attorney General Eric Holder on Monday, AP President and Chief Executive Officer Gary Pruitt said the government sought and obtained information far beyond anything that could be justified by any specific investigation. He demanded the return of the phone records and destruction of all copies.

"There can be no possible justification for such an overbroad collection of the telephone communications of The Associated Press and its reporters. These records potentially reveal communications with confidential sources across all of the newsgathering activities undertaken by the AP during a two-month period, provide a road map to AP's newsgathering operations and disclose information about AP's activities and operations that the government has no conceivable right to know," Pruitt said.

The American Civil Liberties Union said the use of subpoenas for a broad swath of records has a chilling effect both on journalists and whistleblowers who want to reveal government wrongdoing.

Arnie Robbins, executive director of the American Society of News Editors, said, "On the face of it, this is really a disturbing affront to a free press. It's also troubling because it is consistent with perhaps the most aggressive administration ever against reporters doing their jobs - providing information that citizens need to know about our government."

You say this pales in comparison to this:

In 2008 FBI Director Robert Mueller called NY Times' editor Bill Keller and Washington Post chief Len Downie Friday, "expressing regret" that agents had not followed "proper procedures for obtaining phone records. The "lapse" occurred nearly four years ago and involved four staff members of the papers.

The bureau obtained phone records for a Post reporter and a researcher in Indonesia, and Times reporters Raymond Bonner and Jane Perlez, also in the country at the time.

The records were obtained through what is called an exigent circumstances letter, a demand made by the agency in a practice that skirts civil liberties protections that has flourished in the wake of Sept. 11, 2001.

Such records listed the phone numbers the reporters called and received, but not the actual conversation, similar to the warrantless wiretapping program the Bush Administration has employed in tracking calls American citizens have placed to overseas destinations.

"I thanked Director Mueller for calling and informing us of this and apologizing," Post editor Downie told his paper. "I told him that we would be asking our general counsel to look into this."

Both instances are/were wrong. But I didn't see the words "massive and unprecedented intrusion" used in the 2008 piece.

I don't think you understand what the words "pales in comparison" means Brad

When President Obama first got elected we were hoping that they would start an investigation of all the crimes, yes I mean Crimes that the Bush administration participated in starting with a true investigation of 911. Instead he came in and said we need to look forward. No accountability means the same crimes are going to be repeated. I voted for Obama and would again because of the alterative. I really believe he has the middle class in mind rather the other party favoring the 1%. People would have a lot more respect for him if he told his AG to start going after the crooked people starting with Bush and wall street.

Waitaminute Brad, I missed a link there. Are you saying Bush having his Justice Department/FBI/CIA investigate leaks (of sealed court documents and information which could damage national security) within his administration pales in comparison to the phone record grab in Indonesia? I agree and if that is what you were saying I sincerely apologize.

Note: both instances combined PALE IN COMPARISON to an unprecedented grab of two months worth of phone records.

Steve Snyder @ 3 said:

I don't think you understand what the words "pales in comparison" means Brad

I don't think you understand how blockquotes work, Steve.

That was Cesca's quote, not mine. That said, it seems you are so desperate to try to pick a fight with me (constantly), I guess in order to finally win one, that now you are trying to make the case that terminal cancer is not as bad as a deadly heart-attack...or vice versa.

Not particularly interested in playing that game. If you want to argue that AP's comment --- about an investigation of its own reporters - describing something as "massive and unprecedented" makes it so, then so be it. It was horrible and, in my opinion (but not in the opinion of most Republicans who you support) inexcusable. If you'd like to offer the argument that wiretapping the conversations of one or two reporters is less bad than secretly subpoenaing the phone records of 6 of them, that's an argument you're going to have with yourself (or, at least, not with me.)

I stood against Big Government overreach --- particularly into the media and the first amendment --- during the Bush Administration, I stand against it now.

What's your excuse? If it's "national security" again, then I guess you are arguing in favor of the "massive and unprecedented" AP subpoenas, because that's what the DoJ is offering as their reasoning.

Like your Republican friends, you may wish to pick a side on this issue, and then stick with it. Or not.

CUT RICH TAXES CUT POOR FOOD STAMPS
The House Farm Bill proposes reducing Food Stamps $39.7 B over next ten years.
Much of this cut comes from food stamps and other nutritional programs.
No expiring tax cuts for top 2% with incomes As high as $1000 Million.
Wall Street is staffing with former government employees who have influence in Congress.
The Big Banks in particular. Ben White at Politico gave a list showing hires by Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, IBM, GE,, Citigroup, Credit Suisse and JP Morgan.
Buying influence.
The Republicans in the House plan to held another Debt Ceiling Hostage to demanded unspecified tax reform at a future date. The leaders are too chicken to tell their backers that we have to increase the debt ceiling to pay off bills Congress has already voted on and spent.
We have a $14,000 Total National Income and in 2013 fiscal year we get $2700B Revenue And spend $3600B. We borrow $900B. Shameful that the richest nation refuses to tax wealth to balance the budget. $2700B of $14,000B is a 19% Tax Rate. If we were to tax to pay our budget of $3600B
it would be a 26% National Tax Rate.
We rank third in OECD nations As least taxed.
It is time to tax wealthy estates and top incomes at a much higher Effective rate.

You're right about the block quotes thing I guess, not even sure how to do it.

And I must apologize for defending myself against your piece which literally oozes sarcastic innuendo against all Republicans, me included. I thought that's what the purpose of the comment section was, express your thoughts and defend your opinion as necessary. Is lockstep agreement with your views the only acceptable comment? Is that where I've gone wrong? That makes for a dynamic blog I must say....

Steve, overwhelmingly, all you add to the comment sections here are your own shitstains. You repeatedly reveal yourself to be in your own closed bubble incomprehensible universe projecting all your bias, fears, and confusion onto everyone else.

Actually, I take that back. Steve has added to my enjoyment and edification here in reading the many responses by Brad and Ernie to his almost non-stop nonsense. To witness the clarity, intellectual integrity, and patience that Brad and Ernie bring to the table in response to all of Steve's bullshit is pretty inspiring.

The real crime by the IRS is allowing the fraudulent utilization of 501(c)(3) by groups claiming the tax exempt status for contributing to the social good of America in some way.

Tea Party groups are using the tax exempt status to raise money, hide their donors identity, and run ads for political purposes.

This is what the IRS is tasked by congress to verify, that all claims made by anyone wanting 501(c)(3)status is entitled to it.
Exempt Purposes -
The exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3) are charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, and preventing cruelty to children or animals. The term charitable is used in its generally accepted legal sense and includes relief of the poor, the distressed, or the underprivileged; advancement of religion; advancement of education or science; erecting or maintaining public buildings, monuments, or works; lessening the burdens of government; lessening neighborhood tensions; eliminating prejudice and discrimination; defending human and civil rights secured by law; and combating community deterioration and juvenile delinquency.

Raising money for attack ads is not in any way a purpose of 501 (c)(3) group....

Steve Snyder @ 8:

You're right about the block quotes thing I guess, not even sure how to do it.

You needn't "do it". You only need to "read it". The stuff in the pinkish offset boxes in the middle of one of our articles is a blockquote. It's how we quote long pieces of text from someone else from somewhere else.

Nonetheless, as I noted in my last comment above @ 6 --- in response to your long argument with yourself @ 3 --- the words you attributed to me (as I pointed out by blockquoting your remarks at the beginning of my comment) were: "I don't think you understand what the words 'pales in comparison' means Brad". Those words were not written by me. They were written by Bob Cesca. I was quoting him in my article, in the pinkish offset blockquotes.

If you'd like to argue that he doesn't know what "pales in comparison" means, you may do so. Telling me I don't know what it means is a bit of a non-sequitor. I was trying to clear that up in my last comment. Hoping it's clearer now.

As to the substance of your point, I still believe you are trying to argue whether terminal cancer is worse than a sudden heart-attack, in hopes of making the argument that what Obama is doing --- in continuing Bush's policy of spying on American journalists --- is somehow worse than what Bush did. I think you've got a weak argument (in that actually listening to conversations secretly would seem to be far worse than subpoenaing phone records, but I find both pretty equally abhorrent and have said as much many times.)

And I must apologize for defending myself against your piece which literally oozes sarcastic innuendo against all Republicans, me included.

Yes, it was innuendo, though not particularly sarcastic. It was pretty direct. And, if you feel you need to defend yourself for spending a decade making excuses for and looking the other way from criminal behavior by a Republican President, only to suddenly be outraged --- outraged! --- when a Democratic President's administration appears to have been involved with something similar-ish, I leave that to you to decide.

I thought that's what the purpose of the comment section was, express your thoughts and defend your opinion as necessary. Is lockstep agreement with your views the only acceptable comment? Is that where I've gone wrong?

No. You've gone wrong (here and in other recent threads) by asserting I said something I didn't say, making allegations against others without evidence to back up those assertions, and reiterating completely phony propaganda with no basis in reality. You are welcome to say whatever you like here, if you mind our few rules for commenting. You are even welcome to be wrong as many times as you like, so long as you don't purposely post misinformation. But if you are going to make an argument as weak as you did above, you should be prepared to defend it, and you shouldn't get off on the wrong foot by quoting me as saying something that I never did.

''Certain elements may try to stretch this beyond what it is.'' - White House spokesman Ronald Ziegler on the Watergate break-in, 1972.

The more things change....

Well, I learned my lesson about blockquotes, I wasn't aware that those were not your words, so I apologize for that.

So, I just have one more question. You in your last comment call me out for making allegations against others without evidence to back it up. Earlier in that comment you tell me that I spent a decade making excuses for and
looking the other way from criminal offenses by a republican president. So, does that making allegations thing only apply to me? Does the no personal attacks, be respectful, no ad hominem etc. rule apply to others as well?

I do enjoy reading the pieces at the site whether I agree or not. But just take a gander at David's two comments. Was that respectful? Was there any substance whatsoever to his comments? Or was it just an ad hominem?

Again, I thought those were your words which is why I responded as I did... sorry

Steve Snyder asked @ 14:

You in your last comment call me out for making allegations against others without evidence to back it up. Earlier in that comment you tell me that I spent a decade making excuses for and looking the other way from criminal offenses by a republican president. So, does that making allegations thing only apply to me?

No. It applies to me as well. I believe the full context of what I was saying there was pretty clear, but if you feel I'm wrong and that you didn't spend a decade making excuses for the behavior of the Bush Administration, I'm happy to apologize for that. I've just seen absolutely no evidence --- in your years of comments here --- that you've been much more of anything than an apologist for them, and it seems to me your remarks on this thread (downplaying Bush's attack on journalists and the 1st Amendment, while offering outrage about Obama's) would seem to bear that out. If I'm wrong, of course, I am sorry. If you ever showed evidence of that, I'd be even sorrier.

Does the no personal attacks, be respectful, no ad hominem etc. rule apply to others as well?

It doesn't apply to me (or to you, if you wish to attack me), but it does apply to attacking other commenters. And, to that end, thanks for the reminder, because I did mean to add another comment (but got distracted), asking David to cool his personal attacks on you. In truth, you guys --- both you and him --- have gotten away with murder on that score over the past year, and I've not been able to stop that runaway train. But if he could curb his attacks on you, and vice versa, it would be much appreciated!

I do enjoy reading the pieces at the site whether I agree or not. But just take a gander at David's two comments. Was that respectful?

It wasn't. And I hope he will back off in that regard. My apologies for not having asked him to do so earlier, as I meant to!

Brad,

I don't follow your claim that Bush had people listening in on reporters phone calls. In the link to the FBI directors apology, it specifically states that they were able to determine who called whom but not the context of the phone call, similar to the phone tapping of American citizens making overseas phone calls. Please point out that link to me again when you have the time.

I might add that I find that to be a massive infringement on our civil rights and I vehemently opposed that and all things associated with the Patriot Act. Giving up our civil liberties for the "hope" of safety is garbage. I say fuck Bush for putting that crap into place, and also fuck Obama because that's the biggest disappointment I have in his presidency. That he didn't fix it as we all hoped/thought he would. Yes, there was a time early on when I thought Obama would be who he said he was: transparent, anti-lobbyist, bipartisan, end the wars, bring a general feeling of "us" to the political process. The Republicans haven't been helpful in any way, neither has he.

For the record I can't recall when I have made excuses for Bush or supported his "criminal" ways. I compared Bush grabbing the phone records of four reporters to Obama grabbing the records of 20 phones used by over 100 reporters over a two month period and surmise that there is absolutely no comparison between the two. I also clearly stated that both instances were wrong. I didn't know about the Bush phone record grab, I was active duty Navy and was overseas for all of 2004 and most of 2005. The Stars and Stripes newspaper is all it's cracked up to be, a fishwrap.

Fuck this Bush vs Obama crap, there's plenty of room for both in Ft Leavenworth.

IRS Improperly Seized 60 Million Personal Medical Records

http://www.courthousenew...com/2013/03/14/55707.htm

There's a pattern here the D vs R crew is completely missing.

IRS is bound to Obama Care, IRS have said they don't need a warrant to snoop on email or social networking. DHS is tied into IRS, the NSA is tied to DHS.

Treasonous unconstitutional lawlessness and conspiracy. If I could spy the same of you, I could rape you, beat you, blackmail you, steal from you, kill you, or make you kill others for a nice spectacular false flag op.

In other Tesla News...
http://theoatmeal.com/blog/tesla_museum_saved

Fit's right in with Stanley Meyers. When his VW is finally found (or the coup is overthrown, or a new VW shows up), it ought to "visit" the Tesla Museum v2.0 in my opinion. Better yet, if you haven't donated to the cause, why just buy some solar panels and start experimenting yourself? Maybe you can stick wires in a jar and make hydrogen and collect it and then pressurize it?

Oh waaa hydrogen is dangerous, well so is GAS my friend, so is RADIATION my friend.

re: me, wingnutsteve, ad hominems, following Brad's rules

1. I have long thought that an ad hominem attack was one that attacked the person and not the ideas, thoughts, substance of what the person was saying. So, though perhaps incorrect, I thought I was staying in bounds(if just barely) in my harassment of Steve. If you look at my lambasting, I think I'm always writing that what he's SAYING is(fill in the pejorative of your choice)and leaving direct name-calling and slander out. I admit I have been walking a fine line on that for a while, but it was a line I was always keeping in mind.

Now, prodded by Brad's words I looked up "ad hominem" again and found that besides the bit about gratuitously attacking a person or their character there was this--appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect. Whoops. In that case, guilty as charged.

2. On the other hand there IS such a thing as bullshit. I am of the(commonly held)opinion that Steve spreads quite a bit of it around here. As Brad points out in comment #12--

You've gone wrong (here and in other recent threads) by asserting I said something I didn't say, making allegations against others without evidence to back up those assertions, and reiterating completely phony propaganda with no basis in reality.

--Yes, exactly, that's Steve's MO. And as he comes and goes time and again with almost no acknowledgment that he's doing any of that(this present thread perhaps a much appreciated exception) what's a fella to do when feeling the need to call him out on this offensive behavior? Don't we all believe in accountability?

3. Because Brad(and Ernie) has(have)so much integrity, intelligence, fairness, and clarity, I consider Bradblog sort of a rare sacred space. I often feel Steve's efforts here are defiling this space for sport. When I feel that way, I get pissed.

4. I don't know how many months(years?)I bent over backwards trying to find common ground(and NOT vilify) those with points of view extremely at odds with my own. The bulk of my efforts were probably directed towards Steve Snyder and Davey Crocket. In time I became exasperated and said "fuck it". Not only did I not perceive those two as reciprocating the effort but I found time and again they were playing by a completely different set of rules.

My rules are--1. read the other person's point of view and evidence. 2. give a fair representation of it. 3. use evidence, reason, history, common sense, and facts to make your case. 4. look for common ground, when possible, in making your case. 5. acknowledge errors.

5. My sense is that often Steve's goal is to goad and provoke. Okay, then, he won. I was goaded and provoked. He wants to fuck with me. Okay, then, fuck the common ground. I can fight dirty, too. In this, anyway, I feel I have gained at least a Pyrrhic victory as it seems I have gotten under his skin, too.

6. Complaining about ad hominems is a recurring theme of Steve's. I would argue that he indulges in them more than any of us. Here's a recent example--

I got to the point of the video where Stewart screamed in mock outrage for the death of those people. Then I turned it off, have no desire to see anything else from that asshole.
The rest of your comment is just your typical crap which you may or may not beg Brad to delete when you sober up and realize you sound like a pretentious ass.

So he cavalierly ad hominems Jon Stewart, then me. Then when the shit comes flying back at him, he complains. PUHHHLEEEZE. And I'm not even engaging in the kind of weird personal shit he throws in. When I "sober up"???Where'd that come from?

If I really wanted to attack ad hominemly, you'd know it. I'd go to town.--"When Steve gets finished butt fucking his inflatable life-size Yogi Bear doll, making he can calm down and start making some sense," etc...

7. All that said, I heard you, Brad. My apologies to you and to Steve. I will change my behavior.

FUCK!!!!!I worked so long on that goddamn comment and there's STILL a typo.

Note--in my last ad hominem example it should, of course, read "maybe" instead of "making". I got tired of proofreading the damn thing a million times and then something slips in. It's weird how much easier it is to catch mistakes when it's past time you can do anything about 'em.