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."

Silent genocide exposed: Are christians being wiped out in 2025?

Aldara Zarraoa / Contributor | Getty Images

Is a Christian Genocide unfolding overseas?

Recent reports suggest an alarming escalation in violence against Christians, raising questions about whether these acts constitute genocide under international law. Recently, Glenn hosted former U.S. Army Special Forces Sniper Tim Kennedy, who discussed a predictive model that forecasts a surge in global Christian persecution for the summer of 2025.

From Africa to Asia and the Middle East, extreme actions—some described as genocidal—have intensified over the past year. Over 380 million Christians worldwide face high levels of persecution, a number that continues to climb. With rising international concern, the United Nations and human rights groups are urging protective measures by the global community. Is a Christian genocide being waged in the far corners of the globe? Where are they taking place, and what is being done?

India: Hindu Extremist Violence Escalates

Yawar Nazir / Contributor | Getty Images

In India, attacks on Christians have surged as Hindu extremist groups gain influence within the country. In February 2025, Hindu nationalist leader Aadesh Soni organized a 50,000-person rally in Chhattisgarh, where he called for the rape and murder of all Christians in nearby villages and demanded the execution of Christian leaders to erase Christianity. Other incidents include forced conversions, such as a June 2024 attack in Chhattisgarh, where a Hindu mob gave Christian families a 10-day ultimatum to convert to Hinduism. In December 2024, a Christian man in Uttar Pradesh was attacked, forcibly converted, and paraded while the mob chanted "Death to Jesus."

The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) recommends designating India a "Country of Particular Concern" and imposing targeted sanctions on those perpetrating these attacks. The international community is increasingly alarmed by the rising tide of religious violence in India.

Syria: Sectarian Violence Post-Regime Change

LOUAI BESHARA / Contributor | Getty Images

Following the collapse of the Assad regime in December 2024, Syria has seen a wave of sectarian violence targeting religious minorities, including Christians, with over 1,000 killed in early 2025. It remains unclear whether Christians are deliberately targeted or caught in broader conflicts, but many fear persecution by the new regime or extremist groups. Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a dominant rebel group and known al-Qaeda splinter group now in power, is known for anti-Christian sentiments, heightening fears of increased persecution.

Christians, especially converts from Islam, face severe risks in the unstable post-regime environment. The international community is calling for humanitarian aid and protection for Syria’s vulnerable minority communities.

Democratic Republic of Congo: A "Silent Genocide"

Hugh Kinsella Cunningham / Stringer | Getty Images

In February 2025, the Allied Democratic Forces (ADF), an ISIS-affiliated group, beheaded 70 Christians—men, women, and children—in a Protestant church in North Kivu, Democratic Republic of Congo, after tying their hands. This horrific massacre, described as a "silent genocide" reminiscent of the 1994 Rwandan genocide, has shocked the global community.

Since 1996, the ADF and other militias have killed over six million people, with Christians frequently targeted. A Christmas 2024 attack killed 46, further decimating churches in the region. With violence escalating, humanitarian organizations are urging immediate international intervention to address the crisis.

POLL: Starbase exposed: Musk’s vision or corporate takeover?

MIGUEL J. RODRIGUEZ CARRILLO / Contributor | Getty Images

Is Starbase the future of innovation or a step too far?

Elon Musk’s ambitious Starbase project in South Texas is reshaping Boca Chica into a cutting-edge hub for SpaceX’s Starship program, promising thousands of jobs and a leap toward Mars colonization. Supporters see Musk as a visionary, driving economic growth and innovation in a historically underserved region. However, local critics, including Brownsville residents and activists, argue that SpaceX’s presence raises rents, restricts beach access, and threatens environmental harm, with Starbase’s potential incorporation as a city sparking fears of unchecked corporate control. As pro-Musk advocates clash with anti-Musk skeptics, will Starbase unite the community or deepen the divide?

Let us know what you think in the poll below:

Is Starbase’s development a big win for South Texas?

Should Starbase become its own city?

Is Elon Musk’s vision more of a benefit than a burden for the region?

Shocking truth behind Trump-Zelenskyy mineral deal unveiled

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy have finalized a landmark agreement that will shape the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations. The agreement focuses on mineral access and war recovery.

After a tense March meeting, Trump and Zelenskyy signed a deal on Wednesday, April 30, 2025, granting the U.S. preferential mineral rights in Ukraine in exchange for continued military support. Glenn analyzed an earlier version of the agreement in March, when Zelenskyy rejected it, highlighting its potential benefits for America, Ukraine, and Europe. Glenn praised the deal’s strategic alignment with U.S. interests, including reducing reliance on China for critical minerals and fostering regional peace.

However, the agreement signed this week differs from the March proposal Glenn praised. Negotiations led to significant revisions, reflecting compromises on both sides. What changes were made? What did each leader seek, and what did they achieve? How will this deal impact the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations and global geopolitics? Below, we break down the key aspects of the agreement.

What did Trump want?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump aimed to curb what many perceive as Ukraine’s overreliance on U.S. aid while securing strategic advantages for America. His primary goals included obtaining reimbursement for the billions in military aid provided to Ukraine, gaining exclusive access to Ukraine’s valuable minerals (such as titanium, uranium, and lithium), and reducing Western dependence on China for critical resources. These minerals are essential for aerospace, energy, and technology sectors, and Trump saw their acquisition as a way to bolster U.S. national security and economic competitiveness. Additionally, he sought to advance peace talks to end the Russia-Ukraine war, positioning the U.S. as a key mediator.

Ultimately, Trump secured preferential—but not exclusive—rights to extract Ukraine’s minerals through the United States-Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund, as outlined in the agreement. The U.S. will not receive reimbursement for past aid, but future military contributions will count toward the joint fund, designed to support Ukraine’s post-war recovery. Zelenskyy’s commitment to peace negotiations under U.S. leadership aligns with Trump’s goal of resolving the conflict, giving him leverage in discussions with Russia.

These outcomes partially meet Trump’s objectives. The preferential mineral rights strengthen U.S. access to critical resources, but the lack of exclusivity and reimbursement limits the deal’s financial benefits. The peace commitment, however, positions Trump as a central figure in shaping the war’s resolution, potentially enhancing his diplomatic influence.

What did Zelenskyy want?

Global Images Ukraine / Contributor | Getty Images

Zelenskyy sought to sustain U.S. military and economic support without the burden of repaying past aid, which has been critical for Ukraine’s defense against Russia. He also prioritized reconstruction funds to rebuild Ukraine’s war-torn economy and infrastructure. Security guarantees from the U.S. to deter future Russian aggression were a key demand, though controversial, as they risked entangling America in long-term commitments. Additionally, Zelenskyy aimed to retain control over Ukraine’s mineral wealth to safeguard national sovereignty and align with the country’s European Union membership aspirations.

The final deal delivered several of Zelenskyy’s priorities. The reconstruction fund, supported by future U.S. aid, provides a financial lifeline for Ukraine’s recovery without requiring repayment of past assistance. Ukraine retained ownership of its subsoil and decision-making authority over mineral extraction, granting only preferential access to the U.S. However, Zelenskyy conceded on security guarantees, a significant compromise, and agreed to pursue peace talks under Trump’s leadership, which may involve territorial or political concessions to Russia.

Zelenskyy’s outcomes reflect a delicate balance. The reconstruction fund and retained mineral control bolster Ukraine’s economic and sovereign interests, but the absence of security guarantees and pressure to negotiate peace could strain domestic support and challenge Ukraine’s long-term stability.

What does this mean for the future?

Handout / Handout | Getty Images

While Trump didn’t secure all his demands, the deal advances several of his broader strategic goals. By gaining access to Ukraine’s mineral riches, the U.S. undermines China’s dominance over critical elements like lithium and graphite, essential for technology and energy industries. This shift reduces American and European dependence on Chinese supply chains, strengthening Western industrial and tech sectors. Most significantly, the agreement marks a pivotal step toward peace in Europe. Ending the Russia-Ukraine war, which has claimed thousands of lives, is a top priority for Trump, and Zelenskyy’s commitment to U.S.-led peace talks enhances Trump’s leverage in negotiations with Russia. Notably, the deal avoids binding U.S. commitments to Ukraine’s long-term defense, preserving flexibility for future administrations.

The deal’s broader implications align with the vision Glenn outlined in March, when he praised its potential to benefit America, Ukraine, and Europe by securing resources and creating peace. While the final agreement differs from Glenn's hopes, it still achieves key goals he outlined.

Did Trump's '51st state' jab just cost Canada its independence?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Did Canadians just vote in their doom?

On April 28, 2025, Canada held its federal election, and what began as a promising conservative revival ended in a Liberal Party regroup, fueled by an anti-Trump narrative. This outcome is troubling for Canada, as Glenn revealed when he exposed the globalist tendencies of the new Prime Minister, Mark Carney. On a recent episode of his podcast, Glenn hosted former UK Prime Minister Liz Truss, who provided insight into Carney’s history. She revealed that, as governor of the Bank of England, Carney contributed to the 2022 pension crisis through policies that triggered excessive money printing, leading to rampant inflation.

Carney’s election and the Liberal Party’s fourth consecutive victory spell trouble for a Canada already straining under globalist policies. Many believed Canadians were fed up with the progressive agenda when former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau resigned amid plummeting public approval. Pierre Poilievre, the Conservative Party leader, started 2025 with a 25-point lead over his Liberal rivals, fueling optimism about his inevitable victory.

So, what went wrong? How did Poilievre go from predicted Prime Minister to losing his own parliamentary seat? And what details of this election could cost Canada dearly?

A Costly Election

Mark Carney (left) and Pierre Poilievre (right)

GEOFF ROBINSPETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

The election defied the expectations of many analysts who anticipated a Conservative win earlier this year.

For Americans unfamiliar with parliamentary systems, here’s a brief overview of Canada’s federal election process. Unlike U.S. presidential elections, Canadians do not directly vote for their Prime Minister. Instead, they vote for a political party. Each Canadian resides in a "riding," similar to a U.S. congressional district, and during the election, each riding elects a Member of Parliament (MP). The party that secures the majority of MPs forms the government and appoints its leader as Prime Minister.

At the time of writing, the Liberal Party has secured 169 of the 172 seats needed for a majority, all but ensuring their victory. In contrast, the Conservative Party holds 144 seats, indicating that the Liberal Party will win by a solid margin, which will make passing legislation easier. This outcome is a far cry from the landslide Conservative victory many had anticipated.

Poilievre's Downfall

PETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

What caused Poilievre’s dramatic fall from front-runner to losing his parliamentary seat?

Despite his surge in popularity earlier this year, which coincided with enthusiasm surrounding Trump’s inauguration, many attribute the Conservative loss to Trump’s influence. Commentators argue that Trump’s repeated references to Canada as the "51st state" gave Liberals a rallying cry: Canadian sovereignty. The Liberal Party framed a vote for Poilievre as a vote to surrender Canada to U.S. influence, positioning Carney as the defender of national independence.

Others argue that Poilievre’s lackluster campaign was to blame. Critics suggest he should have embraced a Trump-style, Canada-first message, emphasizing a balanced relationship with the U.S. rather than distancing himself from Trump’s annexation remarks. By failing to counter the Liberal narrative effectively, Poilievre lost momentum and voter confidence.

This election marks a pivotal moment for Canada, with far-reaching implications for its sovereignty and economic stability. As Glenn has warned, Carney’s globalist leanings could align Canada more closely with international agendas, potentially at the expense of its national interests. Canadians now face the challenge of navigating this new political landscape under a leader with a controversial track record.

Glenn's Show Prep