Obama involved, publicly, from the beginning, with his aggressive public statements: The IRS conservative targeting scandal is an ugly story indeed
It’s past time for the media to begin asking President Obama tough
questions about the IRS conservative targeting scandal
says Fox's
Jay Sekulow,
Chief Counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ).
After all he
was involved, publicly, from the beginning.
… What was sold to the American public as a low-level scandal perpetrated
by a few rogue employees – a scandal stopped after senior officials
became aware and asserted control – is now (to borrow a Watergate
phrase) “no longer operative.”
Instead, we detail a long-running assault on the Tea Party, beginning
shortly after its emergence in 2009, that is empowered, encouraged, and
orchestrated not only by senior IRS officials in Washington, but also
through outright targeting by the White House, Congressional Democrats,
and the mainstream media.
In fact, the IRS was doing little more than focusing its attention
exactly where the president of the United States told it to focus – on
the groups the president himself identified as a “threat to democracy.”
Consider President Obama’s aggressive public statements – made just
as we now know senior IRS officials were intentionally and aggressively
scrutinizing conservative groups’ applications for tax exemption.
On August 9, 2010 the president warned of “attack ads run by shadowy
groups with harmless-sounding names” during his weekly radio address.
The President said: We don’t know who’s behind these ads and we don’t
know who’s paying for them . . . you don’t know if it’s a foreign
controlled corporation. ... The only people who don’t want to disclose
the truth are people with something to hide.”
On September 16, 2010, President Obama once again warned that some
unidentified “foreign-controlled entity” could be providing “millions of
dollars” for “attack ads.” Less than one week later, he complained
that “nobody knows” the identities of the individuals who support
conservative groups.
On September 22, 2010, President Obama warned of groups opposing his
policies “pos[ing] as non-for-profit social and welfare trade groups”
and he claimed such groups were “guided by seasoned Republican political
operatives” and potentially supported by some unidentified “foreign
controlled entity.”
On October 14, 2010, President Obama called organizations with
“benign sounding” names “a problem for democracy”; the next week he
complained about individuals who “hide behind those front groups,”
called such groups a “threat to our democracy,” and claimed such groups
were engaged in “unsupervised” spending.
Next, consider the IRS’s actions following those statements. Not
only did the IRS continue its targeting, it issued broad questionnaires
that made unconstitutionally-intrusive inquiries designed to get answers
to exactly the questions President Obama posed.
Who are your donors?
What is the political activity of your family and associates?
What are the passwords for your websites?
After all, according to the president, you’re only afraid to answer these questions if “you’ve got something to hide.”
The demagoguery is breathtaking. Not only does he raise the
wholly-unsubstantiated possibility of shadowy “foreign” involvement in
the Tea Party groups, a charge incredible on its face, but he goes the
extra mile of calling such groups, a “threat to our democracy.”
When the president of the United States declares these groups a
“threat to our democracy” is it any surprise that his enthusiastic
supporters (and donors) within the IRS responded with an unprecedented campaign of selective targeting, intimidation, and governmental intrusion?
One grows weary of stating the obvious, but if President Bush had
declared a specific category of citizen groups a “threat to democracy”
potentially run by “political operatives” or “foreign-controlled,” and
the IRS launched an unprecedented campaign of targeting and intrusive
questioning, the mainstream media would have been relentless not only in
its independent investigations but in its calls for accountability – at
the highest levels.
Was the president of the United States involved in the IRS scandal?
He was the one who identified the targets – in the most public manner
possible.
A president singling out citizens groups for targeting and intrusive
questioning merely because he dislikes their message and fears their
political influence?
Now that is a “threat to democracy.”