What IRS Targeting Looks Like

Kevin Kookogey, president and founder of Linchpins of Liberty, describes what IRS targeting has been like for him over at USA Today:

In order to raise money, I filed an application with the IRS in January 2011, seeking to obtain 501(c)(3) status as an educational organization. The

  1. The Mugwump

    This is what the boot of tyranny looks like when it comes down on the neck of the American people.  It starts with harassment, ratchets upward with intimidation, and ends in the gulag.  A politicized bureaucracy is the greatest threat to American liberty since our republic was founded.  I do not exaggerate.  Administration spokesmen are going to try to convince us that these scandals are isolated incidents.  The truth is that when one party controls the bureaucracy, the abuse becomes systemic and pervasive.  Conservatives need a champion who will make the case for small government based on the current scandals.  This is our last chance, people.  We turn back the tide, or we lose the republic.  Our choices are that stark.  Believe it.

  2. 6foot2inhighheels

     …”had to cease any further activity for fear the IRS would target me for harassment.”  says it all.  

  3. The Mugwump
    6foot2inhighheels:  …”had to cease any further activity for fear the IRS would target me for harassment.”  says it all.   · 5 minutes ago

    Says it all?  No, that’s just for openers.  What happens when a general understanding becomes widespread that anyone who criticizes the president will be targeted for harassment by government agencies?  It won’t be just the Tea Party under scrutiny anymore.  It will be places like Ricochet.  Would the management at Ricochet surrender the membership list to the IRS during an audit?  Hmm?  Suppose the Democrats control all branches of government after the 2014 midterms.  Why stop at speech codes for colleges and universities?  How about a hate speech law directed at the Internet?  Who do you suppose will determine the definition of hate?  Seems to me I’ll be one of the first ones sharing a cell next to one Nakoula Nakoula.  Maybe I’ll get lucky and get Peter Robinson for a cellmate.      

  4. KC Mulville

    They came to the White House, but they didn’t meet privately with Obama.

    Who did they meet with?

    Note: David Axelrod has been known to open an opponent’s embarrassing document or two.

  5. Colin B Lane

    I am not a conspiracy theorist.  In fact, I have been known to ridicule people who continue to believe fifty years later that JFK’s assassination was the product of anything other than a lone, pathetic Castro sympathizer’s expert shooting eye.

    But as I contemplate the IRS scandal and the Administration’s efforts to criminalize journalism, the thought occurs to me that we are indeed sliding (perhaps inexorably) towards a form of totalitarianism.  

    And what is so frightening is not that it’s the product of some diabolical mastermind working conspiratorially to bring it about.  What’s terrifying is to see it happening incrementally under all our noses, with so many denying that it is in fact happening.  

    The left likes to ridicule conservatives for hyperventilating about these scandals and for fear-mongering about the perils of big government.  But for the first time in my life, I do fear what is happening.  I’ve never owned a firearm, but I’m seriously considering buying my first one — not to protect myself from criminals, but as something “necessary to the security of a free state.”

  6. Basil Fawlty
    ~Paules: Administration spokesmen are going to try to convince us that these scandals are isolated incidents.  The truth is that when one party controls the bureaucracy, the abuse becomes systemic and pervasive. 

    Actually, administration spokesmen are going to try to convince us that these scandals arose from within the bureaucracy rather than descended from the top down.

  7. The Mugwump
    Colin B Lane:  But as I contemplate the IRS scandal and the Administration’s efforts to criminalize journalism, the thought occurs to me that we are indeed sliding (perhaps inexorably) towards a form of totalitarianism.  

    And what is so frightening isnotthat it’s the product of some diabolical mastermind working conspiratorially to bring it about.  What’s terrifying is to see it happening incrementally under all our noses, with so many denying that it is in fact happening.

    Welcome to the ranks of those who are fully awake.  But there is nothing inexorable about the process.  Our Founding Fathers were shrewd students of tyranny.  One might suppose that in private conversations they predicted this day would come.  We are about to see the wisdom of our Founders put to the test.  Will the rule of law based on a system of checks and balances restore the republic?  Will it be enough to stop tyranny?  I think the answer is yes because our current president is such a flawed individual.  I’m betting the Founder’s plan is sufficient to derail the ambition of one Barack Hussein Obama.  Next stop:  constitutional crisis.  You heard it here first. 

  8. genferei

    Is it wrong of me to wonder where the $30,000 grant was coming from?

    In any event, as Joseph Stiglitz explains in Teh Gruaniad, private charity really comes from the government, too:

    Apple, like Google, has benefited enormously from what the US and other western governments provide: highly educated workers trained in universities that are supported both directly by government and indirectly (through generous charitable deductions).

    Tax really is the front line in the (last stand) battle for liberty.

  9. FloppyDisk90

    So it’s a “right” to be granted a special tax status?

  10. Devereaux
    FloppyDisk90: So it’s a “right” to be granted a special tax status? · 9 minutes ago

    ?How about not to be taxed at all. There is some evidence the 16th Amendment may not have been properly agreed to by the states

  11. 6foot2inhighheels
    ~Paules

    6foot2inhighheels:  …”had to cease any further activity for fear the IRS would target me for harassment.”  says it all.   · 5 minutes ago

    Says it all?  No, that’s just for openers.  What happens when a general understanding becomes widespread that anyone who criticizes the president will be targeted for harassment by government agencies?  It won’t be just the Tea Party under scrutiny anymore.  It will be places like Ricochet.  Would the management at Ricochet surrender the membership list to the IRS during an audit?  Hmm?  Suppose the Democrats control all branches of government after the 2014 midterms.  Why stop at speech codes for colleges and universities?  How about a hate speech law directed at the Internet?  Who do you suppose will determine the definition of hate?  Seems to me I’ll be one of the first ones sharing a cell next to one Nakoula Nakoula.  Maybe I’ll get lucky and get Peter Robinson for a cellmate.       · 1 hour ago

    It says it all because fear drives everything in the dissolution of freedom.  Already, I’ve seen friends sidle away from conversations critical of the administration, or quit activism completely.  

  12. Tom Meyer
    ~Paules:

    A politicized bureaucracy is the greatest threat to American liberty since our republic was founded.  I do not exaggerate.  Administration spokesmen are going to try to convince us that these scandals are isolated incidents.  The truth is that when one party controls the bureaucracy, the abuse becomes systemic and pervasive.  Conservatives need a champion who will make the case for small government based on the current scandals.  This is our last chance, people.  We turn back the tide, or we lose the republic.  Our choices are that stark.  Believe it.

    Politicized bureaucracies go back at least to the Jefferson Administration, if not earlier, so that seems like an unsatisfactory explanation.  The ever-increasing size of the bureaucracy relative to the size of elected government and its ever-increasing power to scrutinize private behavior strike me as much bigger culprits.

  13. Spin

    There is one simple fact that I think we know, but forget:  the Democrats believe in absolute power at the national level.  Notice I don’t say federal, as I’ve recently learned to distinguish between a national government and a federal government.  They believe that their view of things is so self-evident, that anyone who doesn’t see it there way is either stupid, power hungry, or willfully ignorant.  It really is not an issue for them that democrats at the IRS would knowingly target groups from the right.  That’s a feature, not a bug.  We get outraged by this because, in our minds, it’s just plain wrong, and self-evidently wrong.  But to the democrats, it’s the rules of the game. 

  14. HeartofAmerica

    A caller to Rush’s show last week indicated that she is a fundraiser for various conservative/GOP organizations. She shared that she is having a heck of a time getting people to donate because they fear “the list”…the list of people who have been targeted by Obama’s henchman. We’ve all seen the results of those attacks and many people, especially large donors, are genuinely afraid.

    You squash free speech by going after the money that assists candidates and groups to get their stance out there.

  15. Fricosis Guy

    I am with the Torquay hotelier. They’ll try to blame faceless “Washington” … though I’m not sure how well it will work.

    SES types like Lois Lerner won’t be nearly as loyal to Obama as ‘Web’ Hubbell was to the Clintons.

    Basil Fawlty

    ~Paules: Administration spokesmen are going to try to convince us that these scandals are isolated incidents.  The truth is that when one party controls the bureaucracy, the abuse becomes systemic and pervasive. 

    Actually, administration spokesmen are going to try to convince us that these scandals arose from within the bureaucracy rather than descended from the top down. · 1 hour ago

  16. Colin B Lane
    FloppyDisk90: So it’s a “right” to be granted a special tax status? 

    Perhaps not. But the freedoms of speech and of association guaranteed by the First Amendment imply a right not to be targeted by your government for discriminatory treatment because of your speech and association, don’t they? Or are you part of the “nothing to see here” crowd?

  17. FloppyDisk90
    Colin B Lane

    FloppyDisk90: So it’s a “right” to be granted a special tax status? 

    Perhaps not. But the freedoms of speech and of association guaranteed by the First Amendment imply a right not to be targeted by your government for discriminatory treatment because of your speech and association, don’t they? Or are you part of the “nothing to see here” crowd? · 3 minutes ago

    They’re not being “targeted.”  They’re applying for non-profit status and then being subjected to undue scrutiny.  If they don’t want the scrutiny then don’t beg the government for special treatment.  IMHO, the poor sop who made that film blamed for Benghazi is *much* more of a victim then people who had their 501(c)(3) applications held up…he was actually thrown in jail.

    Edit:  OK, they’re being targeted in the sense that not all 501(c)(3) applicants are getting the nth degree treatment but, again, if you truly stand for limited government then don’t supplicate it for special favors.

  18. Fricosis Guy

    I hear you, but the problem is that if you don’t have the IRS cert of your non-profit or charity status you are looked as illegitimate. Remember that contributors need to take care on their taxes as well.

    I know contributors who would not give sizable donations to charities until they produced IRS letters. It has become a de facto license.

    FloppyDisk90: They’re not being “targeted.”  They’re applying for non-profit status and then being subjected to undue scrutiny.  If they don’t want the scrutiny then don’t beg the government for special treatment.  IMHO, the poor sop who made that film blamed for Benghazi is *much* more of a victim then people who had their 501(c)(3) applications held up…he was actually thrown in jail.

    Edit:  OK, they’re being targeted in the sense that not all 501(c)(3) applicants are getting the nth degree treatment but, again, if you truly stand for limited government then don’t supplicate it for special favors.

    Edited 14 minutes ago

  19. Peckish Cedar

    Obama’s surrogates have been trying to deflect by arguing that the conservative organizations applying for 501(c)(3) status deserved scrutiny as if this was justification in itself.  That is just fine as long as the scrutiny is applied fairly to all groups, which it was not.  Additionally, the scrutiny exhibited toward these groups was irrationally invasive and unreasonably burdensome in a manner that indicates the IRS viewed these groups as enemies to be punished, harrassed, and thwarted.

  20. FloppyDisk90

    I understand.

    I’m going to propose something (perhaps) radical:  conservative organizations should be run for profit and ditch 501(c)(3) status.  What better way to practice what you preach?

    I say the above in admitted total ignorance of the relevant tax laws.  Just throwin’ it out there.

    Fricosis Guy: I hear you, but the problem is that if you don’t have the IRS cert of your non-profit or charity status you are looked as illegitimate. Remember that contributors need to take care on their taxes as well.

    I know contributors who would not give sizable donations to charities until they produced IRS letters. It has become ade factolicense.

    2 minutes ago

Want to comment on stories like these? Become a member today!

You'll have access to:

  • All Ricochet articles, posts and podcasts.
  • The conversation amongst our members.
  • The opportunity share your Ricochet experiences.

Join Today!

Already a Member? Sign In