KRAMER’S NOTE:  This is the last in my series on the IRS scandal, providing you with the milestone events in capsulized form, emphasizing the importance of completing the investigation.  The first three in this series can be found in the right column of this page.

The Clear Case Against Lois Lerner

“Tea Party matter very dangerous.  This could be the vehicle to go to court on the issue of whether Citizens United overturning the ban on corporate spending applies to tax exempt rules.”   – Lois Lerner e-mail of February 1, 2011

Lois Lerner takes Fifth Amendment. (worldmag.com photo)

When Lois Lerner made her second appearance before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on March 5, 2014, it was Chairman Rep. Darrell Issa’s intention to ask her about this statement. It goes back to her Oct. 19, 2010 declaration that the Supreme Court dealt a huge blow in its decision on Citizens United and “everyone is up in arms because the Federal Election Commission can’t do anything about it.”

Issa opened the testimony session asking Lerner to identify who wanted the problem caused by Citizens United fixed, and “why would you say Tea Party cases are dangerous?”  But Lerner, as she did on May 22, 2013, took the Fifth Amendment, refusing to answer that and subsequent questions concerning IRS actions against conservative organizations.  Since her first appearance, Issa had obtained a number of 2011 e-mails showing a heightened effort to stymie Tea Party organizations. Continue reading →

KRAMER’S NOTE:  In Part 1, I explained how President Obama’s public chastising of the Supreme Court justices over their decision on Citizens United during his 2010 State-of-the-Union address triggered the IRS scandal.  In Part 2, I took you through the IG’s report on the IRS and the testimony that followed.  If you missed those parts you can scroll down or see “Recent Posts” in the right column.… read more

KRAMER’S NOTE:  This is Part 2 of my effort to provide you with the background leading to the scandal in the IRS.  If you missed Part 1, you can read it by scrolling down or by checking “Recent Posts” in the right hand column.

                                                       Democrats Intimidate the IRS

President Obama scolded the Supreme Court justices for their decision on Citizens United and asked Congress to “right this wrong,” but to Republicans the Court already righted a wrong.  It didn’t take long, however, for the Democrats to begin pressing the IRS to clamp down on Tea Party organizations and other conservative groups.

Democrat Senators Baucus, Schumer and Franken and others wrote to the IRS, threatening legislative action if they failed to “prevent abuse of the tax code by political groups.”

The groups began to complain to their Congressmen that their requests for tax exempt status were being delayed and they were being put through hoops with unwarranted paperwork.

Unexpectedly, on March 7, 2012, the liberal New York Times published an editorial, “The I.R.S. Does it Job,” reporting that “Tea Party supporters claim they are being politically harassed with extensive I.R.S. questionnaires.”  Does anyone believe the president didn’t see this editorial?

But it wasn’t until May 10, 2013, as the result of an IRS IG report, that the IRS’ Lois Lerner planted a question during her telephone conference to provide cover for her organization blaming a few over-zealous rogue employees in the Cincinnati office for the approval delays.

Jay Carney (nat. review.com photo)

Three days later, presidential spokeskid Jay Carney disavowed any prior knowledge of the IG report even though the White House counsel was informed on April 22, 2013  We are to believe no one told the president about the report.

This is the same president who, on May 5, 2013, during a speech at the Ohio State University, had the audacity to tell students to reject the voice that “warn that tyranny (is) always lurking just around the corner.”

Douglas Shulman (wash.times.com photo)

During testimony before the House on May 21, 2013 IRS Director Douglas Shulman revealed that he had visited the White House more than 150 times; meetings we are led to believe only concerned planning for the agency’s work on ObamaCare enforcement.  I’d like to know why the president’s deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter attended some of those meetings. Continue reading →

KRAMER’S NOTE: Many of you may not be familiar with the actions that led to what I believe to be corrupt actions by the IRS.  On one hand, the fair and balanced media are geared for brief news clips and worry about “getting into the weeds” with detail.  And the predominantly liberal news publications simply don’t want you to know the detail.  In fact, most reporters don’t even know the detail.  So, this is Part 1 of a capsulized timeline to help you understand the importance of investigating this scandal.

The Beginning: President Obama Slams Supreme Court Decision

“Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests – including foreign corporations – to spend without limit in our elections.  Well, I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, and worse, by foreign entities.  They should be decided by the American people, and that’s why I’m urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong.”

The Supreme Court justices are rudely scolded by President Obama during the 2010 State-of-the-Union Address (AP photo)

Those were the words of President Obama as he rudely chastised the robed members of the Supreme Court sitting directly in front of him at his 2010 State-of-the-Union address.  And to make matters worse, Democrat members of Congress rose to cheer and applaud directly behind them, including Senators Dick Durbin and Charles Schumer, who intentionally clapped close to their heads.  And Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner stood to their immediate right smiling as he clapped.

In the decision, known as Citizens United, the justices overturned previous decisions that prohibited, “corporations and unions from using their general treasury funds to make independent expenditures for speech defined as an ‘electioneering communication’ or for speech expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate.”

It should be understood that corporations are still not permitted to contribute directly to federal candidates.  The ruling merely allows them to spend money on electioneering from its own accounts without forming political action committees. Continue reading →