43 votes

Hesitation to Use the “C” Word.

There’s an extremely strong movement to turn this IRS story into something other than what it really is.

Watch John Stewart lambaste the IRS earlier in the week. It’s good TV, I’m not denying. He goes on about how incompetent they are as a government agency (and they are) and how disastrous their record keeping abilities are. He spends a good ten minutes making a mockery of the IRS hearings at Congress and while he’s correct in all these things he’s missing the bigger picture.

Same thing with Congress: they LOOOOOVE to grandstand and make a “big” deal out of things yet focus on the wrong issues. Thomas Massey, Darrel Issa, Trey Gowdy and the rest. They interrogated the IRS commissioner and had much to say about how incompetent the IRS is. How intimidating the IRS is. How abusive the IRS is. How arrogant the IRS is.

It’s everywhere in media and undeniable. The general consensus is that the IRS IS all of these things: intimidating, abusive, incompetent, arrogant, and any other adjective that satisfies Congress’ intention to grandstand.

Nobody speaks of the most important adjective, however.


The IRS is criminal.

Destroying evidence as Lois Lerner has done is criminal. Going after conservative organizations that aren’t in line with the current administration is criminal. Lying under oath as Mr. Koskinen has done is criminal.

I turn on the news this week and EVEN NPR discusses the mishaps at the IRS but they refuse to mention the “C” word as well.
The public is unhappy, hell, some of us are infuriated but the effective way to placate the masses at this point is to talk about everything EXCEPT the adjective most fitting (and damaging) for the IRS.

Perhaps Congress won’t go down this road because they know they’ll be pressured to do something other than grandstand. Perhaps media pundits are reluctant as well to mention the “C” word due to being part of vast media empires.

Lois Lerner is a criminal. John Koskinen is a criminal.

What the IRS does is C-R-I-M-I-N-A-L.

There, I said it.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Cyril's picture

These days, it's very important to know how to use the "N" word

These days, it's very important to know how to use the "N" word, each and every time it is necessary :

More gun control?


More speech control?


More kid control / family planning?


More community "organizing"?


More wars on X, Y, or Z?


More wealth extraction / theft?



You get the picture, I suppose.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.


"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius


If you are paying attention to this story, if the media is blanketing airwaves with this story, then there is something much more important going on. They do it every time.

Signs that a story is fake and/or being pushed to cover something else:
1. It is on the "news"
2. It proliferates the false left/right paradigm. IOW, Republican versus Democrat
3. It's the big story on FOX

Why don't they talk about how the sole purpose of the IRS is to collect usery on our money supply for the owners of the Federal Reserve Bank? Why don't they talk about the end of the petrodollar?

And no - I don't really care what Lerner did. There are much more important things going on. And, it is all probably a stunt anyway.

"In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."--Mark Twain

Criminal conspiracy.

Criminal conspiracy.

Never be afraid to ask simple questions.

One of the most frustrating

One of the most frustrating things I saw during these hearings was I think Issa saying to one of the IRS bureaucrats (paraphrasing), "you have the power to tax, and the power to tax is the power to destroy". NO, ISSA! YOU have the power to tax! Congress is responsible for the laws that tax Americans, not the IRS! Congress could destroy the IRS! Quit putting the responsibility on the shoulders of those who you enable to destroy!

The Other Thing...

The other thing nobody will talk about was the election tampering. 501c3 & 4 groups are typically started to educate voters prior to elections. Denying these groups their tax-exempt status silenced them prior to the election. How is this not some form of election fraud too?

I'm sure Ann Coulter hears the "C" word all the time

Oops, wrong thread :)

Jon Stewart's job

is to make fun of any exposed corruption of the Coporate Collective, to make a faction of the public believe this is all a joke. I mean, his brother, Larry Leibowitz, is the COO of the NY Stock Exchange, and Jon going to make sure the Zionist Bankster Fed gets their money to use in the Wall Street Ponzi schemes?

Perverted to its Destruction

Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788
In Full: http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc/americanpatriotpartynewsl...

George Mason: "....Now, suppose oppressions {442} should arise under "this" (US Federal) government, and any writer should dare to stand forth, and expose to the community at large the abuses of "those" powers; could not Congress, under the "idea" of providing for the "general welfare",

and under their "OWN" "CONSTRUCTION", say that this was destroying the "general peace", encouraging sedition, and "poisoning the minds of the people"?

And could they not, in order to provide against this, lay a dangerous restriction On the press?

(APP: Exactly what happened 10 years after the Constitution in the Alien and Sedition Acts by the federal Government and stopped by the "Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions"; Such similar attacks on on the freedom of speech has been recently promoted by today's federal representatives)

Might they not even bring the trial of this restriction within the ten miles square (of Washington DC), when there is no prohibition against it? Might they not thus destroy the trial by jury? Would they not "extend" their implication?

It appears to me that they MAY and "WILL". And shall the support of our rights depend on the bounty of men "whose interest it may be to oppress us"?

That Congress should have power to provide for the general welfare

(APP Note: Defense against "Foreign" aggression) of the Union, I grant.

But I wish a clause in the Constitution, with respect to ALL powers which are NOT granted, that they are retained by the STATES.

Otherwise, the power of providing for the "general welfare" may be "perverted to its destruction"...."


Mr. GEORGE NICHOLAS, in reply to the gentlemen opposed to the clause under debate, went over the same grounds, and developed the same principles, which Mr. Pendleton and Mr. Madison had done.

The opposers of the {443} clause, which gave the power of providing for the "general welfare", supposed its dangers to result from its connection with, and extension of, the powers granted in the other clauses.

He endeavored to show the committee that it ONLY empowered Congress to make such laws as would be necessary to enable them to pay the public "DEBTS" and provide for the "COMMON DEFENCE";

>that this "GENERAL WELFARE" was united, "NOT" to "the general power of legislation",

but to the >PARTICULAR power> of laying and collecting taxes, imposts, and excises,

for the "PURPOSE" of paying the DEBTS and providing for the "COMMON DEFENCE",

that is, that they could raise (APP: ONLY) AS "MUCH" money as would pay the "DEBTS" and provide for the "COMMON DEFENCE",


The clause which was affectedly called the sweeping (SUPREMACY) clause contained "NO new grant of power".

To illustrate this position, he observed that, if it had been added at the end of every one of the enumerated powers, instead of being inserted at the end of all, it would be obvious to any one that it was "NO" augmentation of power.

If, for instance, at the end of the clause granting power to lay and collect taxes, it had been added that they should have power to make necessary and proper laws to lay and collect taxes, who could suspect it to be an addition of power?

As it would grant "NO" new power if inserted at the end of each clause, it could not when subjoined to the whole.

He then proceeded thus: But, says he, who is to determine the extent of such powers?

I say, the same power which, in ALL well-regulated communities,


determines the "extent" of "legislative" powers.

If they exceed these powers, the"JUDICIARY" "WILL" (WHERE ARE OUR LOCAL JUDGES!) declare it "VOID",

or "ELSE" "the PEOPLE" will have a "RIGHT" to declare it "VOID".

Is this depending on any man? But, says the gentleman, it may go to any thing. It may destroy the trial by jury; and they may say it is necessary for providing for the general defence.

The power of providing for the "general defence" ONLY extends to raise any sum of money they may think necessary, by taxes, imposts, But, says he, our only defence against oppressive laws consists in the virtue of our representatives.

This was misrepresented.

If I understand it right, NO "NEW" POWER can be EXERCISED.

(i.e. The legislature cannot amend or ratify the Constitution to arrogate new power, but must stay within the delegated powers)

As to those which are actually granted, we trust to the fellow-feelings of our representatives;

and if we are deceived, we then "trust to altering our {444} government"."

American Patriot Party.CC

Educate Yourself. Educate Others.


RichardTaylorAPP - Chair - American Patriot Party.CC

John Locke #201, 202, 212 to 232; Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions 1798; Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788; Rights of the Colonists 1772.

The problem...

The problem with the "c" word is that stealing from other people is criminal, and that is their job along with the job of Congress. Once it is realized that those in authority are there precisely to carry out criminal activity, then where does it end? This is why they hesitate.

C_T_CZ's picture


I thought the "C" word was Cudnoski...?

Proclaim LIBERTY throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof

Yeah, I made a peripheral glance

at this "outrage theater," but certainly was aware that nothing at all would come of it. Congress is just far too despicable themselves to punish any of the criminals in Washington.

Have you considered using the "O" word?


Hard Time for Lerner et al?

Or Hard Labor? Let's DO lock 'er up,but let's NOT feed her unless she works for it.

Feel that satisfying bump? Just hit the C spot!

dynamite anthrax supreme court white house tea party jihad
to be continued