Shaheen Among Those Who Supported IRS Targetting

It has now come out that Senator Shaheen was among the eight democrats who wrote the IRS asking them to specifically target conservative groups.

The letter can be found in full HERE.

We write to ask the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) to immediately change the administrative framework for enforcement of the tax code as it applies to groups designated as “social welfare” organizations. These groups receive tax and other advantages under section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code (hereinafter, “IRC” or the “Code”), but some of them also are  engaged in a substantial amount of political campaign activity.

...

IRS regulations have long maintained that political campaign activity by a 501(c)(4) entity must not be the “primary purpose” of the organization.  These regulations are intended to implement the statute, which requires that such organizations be operated exclusively for the public welfare.  But we think the existing IRS regulations run afoul of the law since they only require social welfare activities to be the 'primary purpose' of a nonprofit when the Code says this must be its 'exclusive' purpose. In recent years, this daylight between the law and the IRS regulations has been exploited by groups devoted chiefly to political election activities who operate behind a facade of charity work.

...

The IRS should already possess the authority to issue immediate guidance on this matter. We urge the IRS to take these steps immediately to prevent abuse of the tax code by political groups focused on federal election activities.  But if the IRS is unable to issue administrative guidance in this area then we plan to introduce legislation to accomplish these important changes.

Because of this, even religious groups who told their members to actually walk the walk of their faith and support only those candidates who actually adhere to what they believe as Christians were targetted.

Of course Senator Shaheen had no problem with groups like the United Church of Christ which operates here in NH because those groups support her and her agenda.

Safety vs Liberty

With each crisis, we as Americans willingly give up more and more of our freedoms.

As I've watched and read more about the release of the three girls who had been held captive for 10 or more years I can't help be be troubled by how many Americans call for the government or police to do more.

I'm not sure if it is true or not but one report claimed that "neighbors" had reported seeing nude women chained up in the house and in a couple cases banging on the windows.  The response to the discussion was why couldn't the police do more.

Let's stop and think about that, do we really want police to be allowed to just walk into people's homes and search based on hearsay of one person?  Yes, these women may have been freed sooner but how many false reports or rumors do police have to sift through ever day.  What would stop a neighbor from claiming someone they dislike is dealing drugs or has child porn and getting police to raid their house in hopes of finding something illegal?

Its a fine line between safety and liberty.

A Fool And His Money

When growing up we all make mistakes.  Sometimes parents let you make mistakes to learn lessons.  One such lesson is when you see an ad for a toy that looks just too amazing which as a kids you just have to have.  Parents see the ad and realize it's a gimmick but to let the child learn a life lesson parents will sometimes let that child work hard to earn the money to get the toy and when they do they realize they did all this hard work for garbage.  They come out of it learning they must be a little more careful in how they spend their money.

WMUR has a story this week about a man who clearly never learned that lesson.

Henry Gribbohm Jr. said on Saturday evening, he got caught up in a carnival game called Tubs of Fun set up outside the JFK Coliseum in Manchester.  Before he knew it, he had handed over $300.

"They explained to me I was going to get all my money back, I was going to get an Xbox Kinect, and because I was keeping everybody's attention, they were still going to give me a banana.  They lied to me," said Gribbohm.

...

He said he drove home to Epsom and returned to the carnival with more than $2,000 in cash.  In the end, he said he spent $2,600 and never won the game.

He said he returned the next day to ask for his money back, and was given $600 and a stuffed banana with dreadlocks.

So this guy willingly hands over $300 to play a game of chance which he clearly sucked at.  And even after losing time and time again drove home and returned with over $2,000 cash?  Then without any kind of agreement other then the word of the carnival employee who already bilked him out of the original money he continued to hand over thousands more.

Carnivals are buisnesses, they are not there to hand out free stuff.  In order for them to give away XBoxes or banana's with dreadlocks they must take in more money they the items cost plus some to pay the employee working the games.

There is no evidence showing that a gun was placed to this man's head to force him to hand over his money.  He entered into a business establishment that had games set up to get your money with low chance of you winning any prize in return.

What this story is showing is how the mentality of people in this country has turned into a victim society.  It's not his fault that he stupidly handed over his money, it's somehow the carnival's fault.

Reflections Of The Past Week

What a week we've just had.

In the past 7 days I've seen examples of the worst of people and the best of people.  So much could be said about either that I could write a book and still not express everything I'd want to say about it.

Here are some random reflections looking back over it all...

For starters, when I drove into NY last week for a funeral, I saw a billboard right where I entered into Albany that had the Boston skyline and the message "Boston, you are in our prayers" and had a candle on the right side.  This went up just days after the bombing.

After spending hours alone in the car listening to news radio trying to get any updates I could to drive over the horizon and see that was very touching.

Which brings me to the 2nd point... speculation.  Leading up to the identification of the bombers, everyone was hoping and speculating who could have been behind it.  Gut feeling had me thinking it was Islamic extremists but the constant barrage of "it could be a tea party extremist" from the left wing media had me starting to question it.  Even though it was tax day and patriots day as they pointed out, the one fact that had me doubting it would be a tea party extremist is why, if they were lashing out at the government, would they have picked a nearly 100% civilian target?  If an IRS building or government building was bombed then I'd say it might be a home grown terrorist, but not a civilian target.

I heard and read two different sides to this.  One was a Hindu from India who hoped it wasn't a "brown skinned" Islamic extremist because as he put it, they looked too much like him and he ended up getting the fallout.  The other side were those who openly wished it to be a white tea party member because they wanted so bad to point fingers and blame those who disagree with them politically.  The jumped quickly to the guy who mailed poison to Obama but that story quickly disappeared from the media once it came out that the guy who did it was a Democrat.

Then we had the lock down and random door to door searching.  Having spent a lot of time listening to the radio, I was shocked by some of the interviews with people in Boston over this.  One woman said in the future when major events take place perhaps we'd be safer under martial law.  Another called for us to be in more of a police state, saying we need cops with machine guns walking around all over the place.

What would any of that accomplish other then taking more rights away from innocent good people?

What did the total lock down of a major city accomplish other then cause a great number of businesses to lose income and cause major inconveniences for many travelers?

Look at what lead to the eventual capture of the two idiots, the lock-down did nothing to help.  Once identified and forced to go on the run, they hijacked a car.  The driver escaping and calling police allowed police to use the cell phone he left behind as a tracking GPS.  After the shootout that killed one of the two, the other was able to flee and hide for the entire day.  At this point the city went into total lock-down and this only prolonged the capture.  Once the lock-down was lifted the owner of the boat went outside and found blood on his boat and a cut in the cover which lead to the discovery and capture of the 2nd bomber.

Last observation was with the media itself.  After spending hours in the car listening to the news radio playing snippit after snippit taken from all the major networks it's no wonder we have so many conspiracy theorists in this country.  One network puts out incorrect information and within minutes every other network is rushing to report the same story.  Any rumor any Joe Blow on the street said within earshot right away was reported.  Within a day after the bombing there was enough incorrect information put out that I could build a theory claiming Obama was working with aliens who beamed the bomb into place just before it went off.

The worst is over now.  The two suspects were caught or killed and now every aspect of their lives, including any connections they had, will be identified and scrutinized by professionals.

Which brings us to what we see now, the best of people.

Bedford Village Inn raise thousands for the victim who lost both legs.  The Red Sox organization has begun raising money to help the survivors.  Even the guy who's boat was destroyed in the final capture has had people step up offering to donate toward a new boat for him.  Numerous people have rushed to local hospitals and blood banks to donate blood.  Even Yankee stadium belted out Sweet Caroline (or Sweet Adeline as John Kerry put it) during their game after the bombing took place.

Despite all the outpouring of help and support, the road to recovery for some of the victims hasn't even begun.  Four young lives were taken from us, leaving their families a lifetime of pain dealing with their losses.  Others now have physical injuries that they must live with.  Some minor but scars will remain never the less but others who have lost limbs or suffered head injuries will suffer every day.

I think it was the stories of amputations that bothered me the most, especially the young children.  Growing up with a grandfather who lost his arm in a war, I saw first hand the struggles he went through.  People staring at him because he wore a hook.  Medical problems right up until the day he died because of circulation problems because of his amputation.  He struggled to do things that took two arms that many of us don't even think about.

My heart goes out to all of them.  The more I see of the individuals injured and suffering the more I wish I could do more.  Money helps with the bills but it doesn't help the pain.  Likewise, I already give blood regularly so even though my blood may have helped keep them alive it wont comfort them through painful recovery.

If I thought it would help I'd offer to run next years marathon pushing them like the father who runs with his wheelchair bound son every year.

All we can do is pray for the ones we lost and be there for whatever we can for those who survived.

Problem With Politics Today

An article was posted this week that highlights a lot of what I've been thinking lately listening to local NH political scenes.

The article found HERE, discusses the worst of American politics and sadly we here in NH on a state level aren't that much better.

Yesterday, a person asked me what I thought of "Stephen Colbert's sister's" chances of winning "that congressional seat she is running for." I responded that they were decent because her likely opponent (former Gov. Mark Sanford had yet to win his runoff) has a lot of baggage. I paused, then asked why this person cared. "Because I like Stephen Colbert and dislike people that cheat on their wives."

Fair enough, I suppose. But as I reflected on the comment, it dawned on me that despite the fact that following politics is literally my job, I knew nothing — and I mean nothing — about Stephen Colbert's sister other than that she is Stephen Colbert's sister and the Democratic nominee in the race to represent South Carolina's 1st Congressional District in the House.

In NH I've spoken with too many people who aren't far from what this author is speaking about.  They know a politician's name and possibly someone more well known that politician is somehow connected with and they know there is a D or an R next to their name.  Beyond that they don't know a single thing about where they stand on issues.

We have people falling into a few different groupings.

1) There are those who cannot see past the party.  If you have a D or R next to your name they'll support you over the other party or oppose you over the other party without knowing anything about you or your views.  Its one thing to side with a party more often then the other, after all we don't all think alike and I have yet to meet the thinking person who honestly agrees with one party 100%of the time.

A state rep I know had this happen to him.  He's a new state rep and a very personable person so while in the state house he was talking to a few others he happened to know who happened to be from the other party.  Two senior state reps from his town pulled him aside and informed him he shouldn't be seen speaking with the "enemy".

I'm sorry but if that's the way you view politics then you aren't worthy to be in office.  Look at Reagan, he was one of the greatest presidents of our lifetimes, if not the greatest in our lifetimes.  He stood strong for what he believed in and strongly defended Republican ideas but he meet one on one with Democrats and tried working with them.  He even gave into things they wanted in return for getting what he wanted.  It's called compromise.  You cannot expect the other side to give up everything and you having to give up nothing in return.  Reality doesn't work that way.

2) The negative attackers are the next group.  These are people who know their own views would never stand up on their own so all they can do is attack those opposing them, usually on a personal level.  The article above sites a perfect example how that race has highlighted a man who "cheats on his wife" but that doesn't say anything about either person's politics.

Infidelity is the attack I find most interesting because both sides use it against the other side but choose to ignore holding their own to the same standards.  In South Carolina, how many of the people siding with Colbert's sister because the other "cheats on his wife" were supporters of Bill Clinton?  And how many people who see no problem with Sanford, did have a problem with Clinton?

People are not perfect.  If you dig deep enough I doubt there is a family in America that doesn't have some level of personal problems that could be used to attack a member running for office.  Personal problems do not equate to how a person will do in a public office and should not be a disqualification, but if you do choose to use it as a disqualifier then be honest with yourself and hold all political parties to the same standards.

For the record, I have never had a problem with Clinton's affairs.  I did however have a problem with the fact he was having Monica do her thing while on the phone with heads of state discussing national security matters.

3) Uninformed voters.  These are the enablers who feed the politicians and these are people politicians rely on to retain power.  I've meet people over the years who have supported one candidate over another because they found them attractive, because they have a (fill in the ethnicity) sounding name, because they've heard their name before, or as in the case above they are connected in some way to someone else that the voter likes.

For all you know, you could be voting for someone who's views are polar opposite to your own.

These are also the people who usually start listening to sound bytes a week before any election and in most cases only listen to the sound bytes of the side they are already leaning toward without hearing the counter arguments.

So how do we change this?

I'm unable to find the link but I was watching an interesting video of a former Democrat Comedian turned Republican who was able to sum it up nicely.

As you look at history, people were always driven to be better.  If you weren't getting better, you'd die.  Cavemen unable to catch food would starve and die.  Early settlers unable to build decent shelters would freeze and die.  Early man who didn't understand proper sanitation would get sick and die.

Eventually as history changed, it became safer.  Man didn't need to figure out how to gather food to survive.  You could get a house without ever having to learn how to drive a nail or know anything about basic construction.  Science has found cures for many illnesses that would kill thousands in earlier times.

As people became safer in their everyday lives, government had more time.  The leaders no longer had to work to organize hunts for food or build sanitation to assure people would have clean water and ways to get human waste out of the towns.  Leaders had to find new ways to justify their existence.  At first they helped people who struggled but eventually we grew to where even those at the bottom live comfortably in America.  People have food, homes and medical treatment and they don't even have to find any way to pay for any of these.

There's no longer a driving force to be better or die.  When it came time to pick a political view, you had the view that would keep you alive and drive you to being better or you'd have the view that wouldn't and you die.

Once you eliminate "the better", there is no longer anything wrong with the other viewpoint.  There's no consequence for being wrong.

Even now with government spending there's no consequence.  Government debt continues to pile but to what extent?  We just keep upping the limit.  Honestly what is different in your personal life today vs when the national debt was half what it is now, or when it was a quarter of what it is today?  When politicians push programs claiming they wont impact the debt but instead we see trillions in new debt, no one dies... no one suffers... no one feels anything different in their personal lives.

When a government program creates new problems, the problems today aren't like they were a couple generations ago.  People don't die in the streets because there are government safety needs that give you food, housing and everything you need.  There is no real consequence.

Under Obama we have more people on food stamps then ever before in history but because they eat well and really aren't suffering the way early Americans who couldn't find food would have so the drive to be better isn't the same.

The political view to punish those who do better (higher taxes) and reward those who fail is no longer the view that leads people to death so there is no longer a right and wrong.

That's not to say we should let people die in the streets but we need to get back to seeing that being better and striving to be better isn't a bad thing, it's the right thing.

If anyone if familiar with the comedian who I'm summarizing here, please post his name or a link to the video.