So, What's with the Ads Against Iranian Nukes?

Scary!

We are not in election season. Despite the ramping up of the 2016 presidential race, there is no looming election. And yet, in the last few days, I've seen several ads from "Secure America Now," about stopping Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. EVER! After seeing it for the seventh or eighth time, I decided to seek out the group.

They define themselves thusly, "Secure America Now is a non-partisan 501(c)(4) nonprofit organization. Contributions are not tax deductible." Bolding is mine. So, who are they? Welllll.....

ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS
Governor Mike Huckabee
Ambassador John Bolton
Pat Caddell

Aha! That's just three of them, the other names aren't on my radar. But these guys would seem decidedly partisan, wouldn't they? Especially when Bolton is quoted right below his name, saying, "The biggest threat to our national security is sitting in the White House," and Caddell is quoted saying, "We have a President who has suppressed the truth."

Huckabee is of course one of the many people running for the GOP nomination for president. What that has to do with Iran and nuclear readiness, I can't be sure. But I thought I'd just point out, this is just another one of those groups with a jingoistic name, claiming to be non-partisan when it isn't. It's the exact thing the IRS should be looking into, regarding tax exempt status.

Also of note, one of their other points of interest is Benghazi!

Here's one of their ads:
 

IRS To Crack Down on Bogus "Social Welfare" Tax Exempt Political Groups

Image from source, ThinkProgress

Good!

[Excerpt]

Treasury And IRS To Crack Down On Super PACs Masquerading As Tax-Exempt Social Welfare Groups
 
The U.S. Department of the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service issued proposed guidelines on Tuesday that could force dark-money political groups like Crossroads GPS and the American Future Fund to spend less of their money on campaign advertising and other overt electioneering. If implemented, this guidance would clarify what actions by tax-exempt social welfare organizations are limited “candidate-related political activity” and what actions can count toward their principal purpose. . .

Read more at: Think Progress

Lawrence O'Donnell Points Out (Again) The REAL IRS Scandal

I might be getting a little too repeaty with my Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell posts, but this subject bears repeating, and needs to be spread far and wide. The real IRS scandal is the fact that these Tea Party groups were accepted for their tax exempt status in the first place, not the fact that they were investigated (and should have been).

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The Real IRS Scandal

Yeah, no reason to look into these peoples' taxes. . .

I know I'm lefty, liberal, moonbat, but I'm having a difficult time finding the "scandal" in the IRS/Tea Party scandal. Let's see, in 2009--right after President Obama took office--a thousand "Tea Party" groups sprung up all over the country. Lots of them file for tax exempt status. Now, all of these groups have some variation of "tea party," "taxed enough already," "patriots," "freedom" and other co-opted right-wing buzzwords as names. They're on record as absolutely hating taxation. And they are obviously, overtly political. These tax exemptions are supposed to apply to primarily non-political organizations. Ipso facto, badda-bing, Bob's your uncle, AUDIT TIME. What's the problem?

The worry seems to be that the IRS was being partisan and not balanced. But was there an equal and opposite phenomenon going on, on the left at the time? Maybe the "occupy" movement, though that came later. But were they trying for the same status? Anyway, fine. If there were copious amounts of political groups on the left vying for the same status, and yet were ignored by the IRS? Make the scandal about that. But the focus on the tea party groups sounds completely legit on the surface to me. We need more information before jumping to conclusions.

Meanwhile, Lawrence O'Donnell has focused in on the underlying problem at the root of this potential scandal: a change in the meaning of the word "exclusive" by the IRS, all the way back in 1959. It's worth a view even if you're a rightie, for the history lesson. Take a look.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

And, per usual, there is a blogger out there who does this better than me who goes by the nom de plume The Rude Pundit. If you think you have a better handle on this scandlette than I do, please read this (The IRS "Scandal" Isn't a Scandal, But It Will Get Annoying) and see if you still feel that way.