IRS admits targeting TEA Party...one year after TheBlaze broke the story

May 13, 2013

Writer

Last Friday, the IRS came out and admitted to "inappropriately flagging" conservative political groups during the 2012 election to see if they were violating tax-exempt status.

While this was breaking news to the mainstream media, the only thing that was surprising to Glenn was the admission from the IRS. Glenn and TheBlaze had been reporting on the issue for over a year.

In a statement Glenn released on TheBlaze over the weekend, Glenn noted, "as early as February 14, 2012, TheBlaze’s Mike Opelka published a story titled: “Is Obama Using the IRS to Silence Opposition Voices?”
In it, Opelka detailed the emails TheBlaze has received from conservative groups “alerting us to the oppressive demands being sent to them from the IRS.” Among other things, the IRS apparently wanted hard copies of every social media post; the name, address, and corporate federal ID of members; and the time, location and content schedule of each event, including printouts of the text of every speech given."

This morning on radio, Glenn reminded listeners that, a year ago, when TheBlaze first reported on the issue, he was called a ' right-wing, crazy conspiracy theorist'.

Glenn also replayed audio from March of 2012 of IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman answering a question addressing the accusation that the IRS was targeting right-wing groups. Shulman denied the claims, stating the IRS 'prides itself on being non-partisan'.

"Thanks for bringing this up. Because there's been a lot of press about this and a lot of moving information, so I appreciate the opportunity to clarify it. First let me start out by saying yes, I can give you assurances. As you know, we pride ourselves on being a nonpolitical, nonpartisan organization. I'm the only — me and our Chief Counsel are the only presidential appointees…"

"You want to check your calendar?" Glenn interjected during the clip.

"Documents now obtained by the Washington Post from a congressional aide with knowledge of the findings show that on June 29th, 2011, IRS staffers held a briefing with senior agency officials in which they described giving special attention to instances where statements in the case file criticized how the government ‑‑ hold it. Where statements in the case file criticize how the country is being run. Lerner oversees tax‑exempt groups for the agency raise objections and the agency revised its criteria a week later. But six months later the IRS applied a new political test to groups that applied for tax‑exempt status as social welfare groups. The document says that on January 15th, 2012 ‑‑ is that before or after this testimony?" Glenn asked.

"That's before," Pat responded.

Glenn continued, "January 15th, 2012, the agency decided to target, quote, political action type organizations involving in limiting expanded government educating on the Constitution and Bill of Rights."

Along with conservative, grass-roots, and Constitution-based groups being targeted, pro-Israel Jewish groups were also singled out.

"This is just what the Jewish groups were asked to file, when they were filing and saying, "We want to be a tax‑exempt status," they had to file out all these questions," Glenn said. "I'll give you some of the questions, but here are the ones to the Jewish groups: Does your Jewish group support the existence of the land of Israel?"

"Why do you have to know that at the IRS?" Glenn asked.

"What is the difference there?" Glenn asked. "Also, it demanded the Jewish organizations describe its religious belief system toward the land of Israel."

Think those are bad? Here's a sample at what some of the 9/12 & TEA Party groups were also dealing with. The San Fernando Valley Patriots received 12 pages, 35 questions — 80 different sub questions in total.

Here's a sample:

Provide details regarding all of your activity on Facebook and Twitter.

Provide details regarding all of your advertising you have conducted using social media outlets.

Provide a list of all issues that are important to your organization.

Indicate your position regarding each issue. If associated with any other IRC 501(c)(3), provide the name,

The federal employee identification number and address of each organization. Describe the nature of all context with all other organizations.

Candidate forms: Please provide details including the nature of the forums and the issues discussed.

You attempt to influence the outcome of specific legislation, please answer the following: Provide copies of all communications, all pamphlets, all advertisements, and other material distributed by your organization regarding legislation.

Provide details regarding your relationship with the TEA Party patriots and the Sacramento Patriot movement.

"It's impossible to do this," Glenn said.

Here's a question posed to Ohio Liberty, Kentucky 9/12, Waco TEA Party, Richmond TEA Party, Unite in Action, San Fernando Valley Patriots:

Political affiliation of any organization that provided educational services to you.

Any candidates for public office that happened to speak at any function they have ever had. Please provide written transcripts of those speeches.

All activities with the news media providing articles, news transcripts, items aired. Provide the resume of every past and present director, officer, and employee.

…and that's just one small sample of what was being asked of these groups by the Internal Revenue Service.

Glenn went on to explain that the ACLJ is going to be litigating this case.

"And sue this government and they should. This is a violation of your civil rights," Glenn told listeners. "This is a Civil Rights Movement. As I have been saying for a while, this is a Civil Rights Movement, and if anybody in the press cares to show the slightest bit of interest, you're welcome to all of the copies of all of the letters that we had and posted in 2011."

"Now, I also, I could provide classes for you on what happened in Benghazi if you'd like to ‑‑ you'd like to pick up the Benghazi ball. If you'd like to understand what happened with Benghazi, I can help you on that as well, seeing that you are now reporting the things that we reported a week into Benghazi. And you had. Because I'm the our gang comedies of news compared to the worldwide global resources of ABC News you. So I know you had the same information. The question is why didn't you report it? CBS, the same with you. CNN, the same with you. Same for all of these news organizations: Where were you? We reported it. You didn't. Why?" Glenn asked.

"So I can give you a schooling on that. And if you'd like, I could also give you the schooling on the Muslim Brotherhood and its infiltration. I can show you again the documents that you have, that you verified and that many of your organizations have spiked after your top journalists went after the Libyan ‑‑ not the Libyan but the Saudi Arabian connection to Boston. You've spiked the story. So you already have it. Your top journalists in two of the networks did multiple filings on stories and they were spiked. So that's the next thing. I suggest you guys start coming clean."

It wasn't until Friday that the media really started to take these stories seriously — right about the moment that the White House called a private meeting with 15 journalists.

"They called 15 or 17 journalists in to the White House on Friday to have a private conference with them on Benghazi. And then everybody said, "Oh, this is a really important thing." So the White House is going to start throwing midlevel staffers and low‑level staffers underneath the bus. Do not accept it, America. Do not accept it. This goes all the way to the top. You ask yourself ‑‑ you ask yourself this one question: Why exactly did the president, why was he ‑‑ why was he completely invisible on a day that we had an ambassador killed? He made a political calculation to say, "I went to bed. I didn't know. The Pentagon ran the whole thing. Everybody ran it but me. They just told me, and I'm still, I'm still ‑‑ I don't know. I'm out of it." Why? Why, during an election, would a president want to look like he was completely disconnected? That was our first tip something was wrong. Because the president came out and said something, and we should find the tape, where I came out and said, "Look, something's wrong here." Why is the president making himself look not presidential?"

"Something's very wrong," Glenn said. "Now, if you're going to take a low‑level staffer when the President of the United States behaved in a way I've never seen a President behave before, you are still covering for this White House."

These ‘conservative’ Glenn Beck critics are now supporting Kamala Harris

Drew Angerer / Staff, NBC NewsWire / Contributor, NBC NewsWire / Contributor | Getty Images

There’s a certain irony in how some of the loudest critics of Glenn Beck within the conservative ranks have now thrown their support behind Kamala Harris, a figure whose politics stand in stark contrast to the values they once claimed to uphold. Let's take a look back at these self-proclaimed guardians of conservatism, who once claimed Glenn Beck was a threat to the conservative movement, but are now backing the most far-left, radical candidate the Democrats have ever produced.

Adam Kinzinger

Adam Kinzinger was elected in 2010 as a Tea Party conservative, riding the wave of anti-establishment sentiment that defined the movement. However, by 2013, he was already distancing himself from the principles that got him elected. Criticizing Glenn Beck for labeling him a RINO, Kinzinger said, "The perception is, if you do one thing out of line with what is considered hard-core conservatism, or what Glenn Beck says or what Mark Levin says, then you are a RINO." Now, he’s taken his political shift to the extreme, endorsing Kamala Harris at the Democratic National Convention and praising her as a defender of democracy—all while claiming to be a Republican and a conservative.

Bill Kristol

Bill Kristol’s flip-flop is even more astounding. Kristol, who once took it upon himself to attack Beck for his warnings about radical Islam and creeping authoritarianism, now finds himself on the same side as Kamala Harris. Kristol’s past criticisms of Beck, comparing him to fringe elements like the John Birch Society, now ring hollow as Kristol himself becomes an apologist for the far left. His endorsement of Harris shows that his commitment was never to conservatism but to whatever political winds would keep him in the spotlight.

Jennifer Rubin

Jennifer Rubin is a prime example of how establishment figures at outlets like The Washington Post have masqueraded as conservatives while working to undermine genuine conservative voices. Rubin, who once criticized Beck by saying, "Rather than reflexively rising to his defense when questioned about Beck, why don’t conservatives call him out and explain that he doesn’t represent the views of mainstream conservatives?" was never truly aligned with conservative values. Her columns have consistently pushed establishment narratives, and now they read like PR pieces for the Democratic Party, especially when it comes to Kamala Harris. Rubin’s journey from supposed conservative commentator to one of the Biden administration’s staunchest defenders shows that her critiques of Beck were always about protecting her place within the Washington elite, not about upholding any real conservative principles.

Kinzinger, Kristol, and Rubin once posed as guardians of conservatism, warning about the supposed dangers of Glenn Beck. Now, they’ve endorsed Kamala Harris, a candidate whose policies are anathema to conservatism. Their criticisms of Beck were never about protecting conservative values—they were about steering the party back under their control. But the real target wasn’t just Beck; it was the audience he represents—everyday conservatives who challenge the status quo. These insiders have always seen that base as the real threat, and their actions make it clear who they were really trying to sideline.

What happens if Trump wins from prison?

Rob Kim / Contributor | Getty Images

If Donald Trump is sentenced to prison time, it will be the first time in American history that a former president and active presidential candidate is thrown behind bars. Nobody knows for sure what exactly will happen.

With the election only a few months away, the left is working overtime to come up with any means of beating Trump, including tying him up in court or even throwing him in jail. Glenn recently had former U.S. DoJ Assistant Attorney General and Center for Renewing America senior fellow Jeff Clark on his show to discuss the recent resurrection of the classified documents case against Trump and what that could mean for the upcoming election. Clark explains that despite the immunity ruling from the Supreme Court this summer, he thinks there is a decent chance of a prison sentence.

What would that even look like if it happened? This is a completely unprecedented series of events and virtually every step is filled with potential unknowns. Would the Secret Service protect him in prison? What if he won from his jail cell? How would the American people respond? While no one can be certain for sure, here's what Glenn and Jeff Clark speculate might happen:

Jail time

ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS / Contributor | Getty Images

Can they even put a former president in prison? Jeff Clark seemed to think they can, and he brought up that New York County District Attorney, Alvin Bragg, had been talking with the New York jail system about making accommodations for Trump and the Secret Service assigned to protect him. Clark said he believes that if they sentence him before the election, Trump could be made to serve out his sentence until his inauguration, assuming he wins. After his inauguration, Clark said Trump's imprisonment would have to be suspended or canceled, as his constitutional duty as president would preempt the conviction by New York State.

House arrest

BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI / Contributor | Getty Images

Another possibility is that Trump could be placed under house arrest instead of imprisoned. This would make more sense from a security standpoint—it would be easier to protect Trump in his own home versus in prison. But, this would deny the Left the satisfaction of actually locking Trump behind bars, so it seems less likely. Either in prison or under house arrest, the effect is the same, Trump would be kept off the campaign trail during the most crucial leg of the election. It doesn't matter which way you spin it—this seems like election interference. Glenn even floated the idea of campaigning on behalf of Trump to help combat the injustice.

Public outrage

Jon Cherry / Stringer | Getty Images

It is clear to many Americans that this whole charade is little more than a thinly-veiled attempt to keep Trump out of office by any means necessary. If this attempt at lawfare succeeds, and Trump is thrown in jail, the American people likely will not have it. Any doubt that America has become a Banana Republic will be put to rest. How will anyone trust in any sort of official proceedings or elections ever again? One can only imagine what the reaction will be. If the past is any indication, it's unlikely to be peaceful.

POLL: What topics do YOU want Trump and Harris to debate?

Montinique Monroe / Stringer, Win McNamee / Staff | Getty Images

Does Kamala Harris stand a chance against Donald Trump in a debate?

Next week, during the second presidential debate, we will find out. The debate is scheduled for September 10th and will be hosted by ABC anchors David Muir and Linsey Davis. This will be the second presidential debate, but the first for VP Kamala Harris, and will feature the same rules as the first debate. The rules are: no notes, no chairs, no live audience, and the debater's microphone will only be turned on when it is his or her turn to speak.

This will be the first time Trump and Harris clash face-to-face, and the outcome could have a massive effect on the outcome of the election. Trump has been preparing by ramping up his campaign schedule. He plans to hold multiple rallies and speak at several events across the next several days. He wants to be prepared to face any question that might come his way, and meeting and interacting with both voters and the press seems to be Trump's preferred preparation approach.

With the multitude of issues plaguing our nation, there are a lot of potential topics that could be brought up. From the economy to the ongoing "lawfare" being waged against the former president, what topics do YOU want Harris and Trump to debate?

The economy (and why the Biden-Harris administration hasn't fixed it yet)

The Southern Border crisis (and Kamala's performance as border czar)

Climate change (and how Trump pulled out of the Paris Agreement)

The "lawfare" being waged against Trump (and what Trump would do if he were thrown in prison)

Voting and election security (and how to deal with the possibility that illegal immigrants are voting)

3 ways the Constitution foils progressive authoritarianism

ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS / Contributor, Kevin Dietsch / Staff, Pool / Pool | Getty Images

This is why it is important to understand our history.

Over the weekend, the New York Times published a controversial article claiming the Constitution is a danger to the country and a threat to democracy. To those who have taken a high school American government class or have followed Glenn for a while, this claim might seem incongruent with reality. That's because Jennifer Szalai, the author the piece, isn't thinking of the Constitution as it was intended to be—a restraint on government to protect individual rights—but instead as a roadblock that is hindering the installation of a progressive oligarchy.

Glenn recently covered this unbelievable article during his show and revealed the telling critiques Szalai made of our founding document. She called it an "anti-democratic" document and argued it is flawed because Donald Trump used it to become president (sort of like how every other president achieved their office). From here, Szalai went off the deep end and made some suggestions to "fix" the Constitution, including breaking California and other blue states away from the union to create a coastal progressive utopia.

Here are three of the "flaws" Szalai pointed out in the Constitution that interfere with the Left's authoritarian dreams:

1. The Electoral College

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

The New York Times article brought up the fact that in 2016 President Trump lost the popular vote but won the Electoral College, and thus won the election. This, as Szalai pointed out, is not democratic. Strictly speaking, she is right. But as Glenn has pointed out time and time again, America is not a democracy! The Founding Fathers did not want the president to be decided by a simple majority of 51 percent of the population. The Electoral College is designed to provide minority groups with a voice, giving them a say in the presidential election. Without the Electoral College, a simple majority would dominate elections and America would fall under the tyranny of the masses.

2. The Supreme Court

OLIVIER DOULIERY / Contributor | Getty Images

President Biden and other progressives have thrown around the idea of reforming the Supreme Court simply because it has made a few rulings they disagree with. Glenn points out that when a country decides to start monkeying around with their high courts, it is usually a sign they are becoming a banana republic. Szalai complained that Trump was allowed to appoint three justices. Two of them were confirmed by senators representing just 44 percent of the population, and they overturned Roe v. Wade. All of this is Constitutional by Szalai's admission, and because she disagreed with it, she argued the whole document should be scrapped.

3. Republicanism

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

To clarify, were not talking about the Republican Party Republicanism, but instead the form of government made up of a collection of elected representatives who govern on the behalf of their constituents. This seems to be a repeat sticking point for liberals, who insist conservatives and Donald Trump are out to destroy "democracy" (a system of government that never existed in America). This mix-up explains Szalai's nonsensical interpretation of how the Constitution functions. She criticized the Constitution as "anti-democratic" and a threat to American democracy. If the Constitution is the nation's framework, and if it is "anti-democratic" then how is it a threat to American democracy? This paradox is easily avoided with the understanding that America isn't a democracy, and it never has been.

Glenn's Show Prep