NAACP to be Target of Bush Admin Tax Probe

Guess this is what happens if you don’t get down and play ‘Uncle Tom’ for the Bush Administration – any expression of dissent, and you’re likely to end up with an IRS audit, getting onto the no-fly list for airlines, etc. Keep in mind that if it can happen to the NAACP, it can pretty much happen to anybody. … Oct28.html

'The Internal Revenue Service has threatened to revoke the NAACP’s tax-exempt status because the civil rights group’s chairman, Julian Bond, “condemned the administration policies of George W. Bush” during a speech this summer, according to documents the group provided yesterday.

'The NAACP, which is based in Baltimore and is the nation’s oldest and largest civil rights organization, is incorporated under a tax-code section that prohibits participation in a political campaign. The group has long had a strained relationship with the Bush administration.

'An IRS document dated Oct. 8 said that at the group’s annual convention in Philadelphia in July, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People may have violated the restriction on political activity because it “distributed statements in opposition of George W. Bush for the office of presidency.” ’

What are the rules? If the NAACP violated them so what? Should it NOT be prosecuted? Is this fair?

Well, if you have an administration that likes to disenfranchise blacks, you can bet that the NAACP can be critical. Bush never even bothered to meet with the NAACP – if he had, he might have done a great job with them and might not even be struggling in his re-election campaign. Then again, perhaps he would have pulled a Ross Perot and called them “you people” all throughout, as if they were bugs or something.

So now the lesson appears clear – don’t speak up, sit still in the back of the bus, and the GOP will like 'em just fine. However, the full might of the federal government will come down on anybody who’s even THINKING of saying anything negative about Bush.

It seems like intimidation. At this time, the NAACP can’t justify its position about George W. Bush’s policies, because it’s so close to the election. That would be more like interfering with a political campaign.

Months before the Presidential election, one man in the NAACP criticized George W. Bush’s policies on education, the economy and the war in Iraq in a speech. Now, weeks directly before an election, the IRS chose to audit the NAACP at this politically charged time. It was a speech given at meeting of the NAACP, not a political convention. It really does seem like intimidation. The NAACP did not announce to the whole world that they should vote for Kerry. The chairman said how the NAACP felt about the Bush policies.

Some career civil servant at the IRS, scared that the black vote was drifting away from Kerry, decided to pull this as a political stunt three days before the election to scare blacks back into the Democratic camp.

The message is clear: “Get back to picking cotton, you can’t vote Republican, the Democrats OWN your ass.”

twocs’ scenario seems to be far more in line with sense than maposquid’s. I don’t for a second think any IRS guy would be able to pull off a high-profile stunt like that without the Bush Administration’s approval. If maposquid were correct, then of course the Bush administration has had quite a long time to declare that they are not going to sic the IRS on the NAACP and that this was purely an error by an IRS bureaucrat. Because the Bush administration has not retreated from the announced plans, then we can assume that they fully support it.

This is a pure example of the Bush administration trying to intimidate the NAACP into shutting up right before an election. “I’m George Dubbya Bush, and I support keepin’ the black man down!”

I love this. Does anyone but me see the exquisite condescension so prevalent in the Democrat Party that one organization the NAACP is authorized to speak for all Blacks in America. This is why 20% of Blacks will be voting Republican this year. They woke up and went, what the f***, I am an individual not a block group of votes that has to follow some corrupt shake down artist like Jesse Jackson nor am I a sure vote ala the teacher’s unions and civil servants unions. Gosh. The idea that Blacks could be individuals who can think and vote for themselves. Quel Horrore! Now, you see how it was the Republicans who emancipated the Blacks and gave them civil rights protection (Eisenhower) while the Democrats are the party of patronizing “we are from the government and we are here to help” Shit!

So? For years, the Democrats have been going after conservative churches by trying to use the IRS to revoke their tax-exempt status. Here’s just one recent example: … 61894.html

Ironically, the Republicans seem to be at the forefront of mistakenly identifying the NAACP as an arm of the Democrats.

Jesse Jackson is in charge of the “Rainbow Coalition”, not the NAACP. Jackson is an overtly political person (and a former candidate for office), whereas the NAACP is not nor is its leader. Perhaps you think “all blacks look alike” or else you wouldn’t try to make this sort of ridiculous statement. Have you heard of Julian Bond? He’s the chairman of the NAACP board of directors – although he has previously served in the Georgia General Assembly, he’s primarily known as a civil rights activist and as the first president of the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Blacks should be able vote for themselves. Now, if the modern-day Republicans would only stop interferring with their right to vote I think there’d be a lot of improvement in the GOP’s relationship with that very diverse section of society.

What have they done lately? The GOP has gone from the “party of Lincoln” to that of “George Lincoln Rockwell”. Trent Lott’s statements are not an isolated incident, and from the efforts to disenfranchise black voters it is clear that the GOP doesn’t give a crap about them.

Eisenhower happened to be in office at the same time that the Supreme Ct. decided the Brown vs. Board of Education case. Big whoop. In that sense, I guess Nixon can also lay claim to the Roe vs. Wade decision, right? Truman integrated the military, and it wasn’t until the Kennedy/Johnson years that civil rights were really pushed forward.

Far better than the Republicans: “We’re from the government and we’re here to use it’s full weight to keep you down. You want to vote? We’ll be stationed at the poll to challenge you. You want to say anything? We’ll sic the IRS on you.”

Yep. You’re absolutely right. That’s why Bush has 4 blacks in his cabinet, Rice, Jackson, Powell and Paige. Makes it easier to herd the darkies into the cattlecars. :unamused: … 050609.htm

'COLUMBIA, S.C. - Charleston County election officials cautioned South Carolinians on Friday to steer clear of a fake letter that threatens the arrest of voters who have outstanding parking tickets or have failed to pay child support.

'The one-page letter poses as a message from the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.

'The Rev. Joe Darby, vice president of the state NAACP chapter, said he received the letter at his home in Charleston. It had Columbia postmark with no return address.

‘He said the letter was an attempt to scare minorities from voting Tuesday because the author of the message assumes black people are in trouble with the law.’

The letter also insists that voters must have a credit check, provide two forms of photo identification, a Social Security card, a voter registration card as well as a handwriting sample.

Looks like the GOP sure has something against people “voting while black”, spreading misinformation under the guise of it coming from the NAACP and then siccing the IRS on them.


'COLUMBIA, S.C. - Charleston County election officials cautioned South Carolinians on Friday to steer clear of a fake letter that threatens the arrest of voters who have outstanding parking tickets or have failed to pay child support.[/quote]

Doesn’t make too much sense for the GOP to do it in SC. Bush is going to win big here.

And an aside. Years ago I was a reporter for a small “progressive/alternative” newspaper here. I had to cover a local election in over in Marlboro County. The former head of the Young Democrats was having to carry a pistol because the new head was wanting to whack him. During the voting, I saw black voters being given bottles of whiskey in exchange for their ballots. This was done inside the polling places. Marlboro County and the entire eastern part of the state is so corrupt it’s unreal. As former US Representative (Dem) John Jenrette said “Larceny is in my heart!” His wife Rita sure was a foxy little bit of white trash… … rticle.htm … nrette.htm … 94-1961527

Only for the presidential candidates might it not make a difference, but there are local and state elections as well.

When I was in school, our paper somehow got a notebook belonging to the head of the College Republicans in which he had written extensive notes about how the Nazi party could rise up to take over the United States. The doodles in the margins were fascinating – quite a fashion sense, that boy. It wasn’t serious political thinking but, rather, the sort of daydreamy stuff in which a 18 or 19-year-old thinks through elections, declaration of a state of emergency, and a leader suddenly pulling off his mask to say: “Hey, I’m exactly the sort of authoritarian guy you need for these troubled times!”

Good thing the Republicans wouldn’t think to do something like that these days…

Funny that the Republicans are seen as the party of Naziism and Fascism. Actually, given that the Republican party has traditionally emphasized small government and individual rights and responsibilities, which one then sounds more like Naziism: Think of the party that wants to determine “correct thinking” or political correct behavior, wants to enforce a standard on education, wants to control economic behavior, etc. and I think that you will come to the correct conclusion: Democrats especially on the Leftist fringe. Ironically, they are the least likely to see themselves this way but on with their banners they go to fight the good fight and to rid the world of “evil” people such as George W. Bush.

Good thing the Republicans wouldn’t think to do something like that these days…[/quote]

Well, it was Clinton and Reno who set loose the BATF murderers/thugs.

Why is it that the Republicans are tied in with authoritarianism?

  1. Lack of tolerance for others – the Democratic party is extraordinarily diverse, whereas the GOP has to struggle to get a few minorities on board. As was quite noticeable at the 2000 and 2004 GOP conventions, the Republicans were stuck having to make a fake image of inclusiveness by putting more minorities onstage than were in the audience. The GOP, to all appearances, has no tolerance for blacks, arab-americans, gays or women – and it seems to spend a lot of time looking for new ways to punish poor people for being poor. And while I found the “politically correct” wordtwisting ridiculous at the time, it was an effort to allow minorities and disabled people to pick their own term – i.e., an effort at inclusiveness.

  2. Ashcroft and Poindexter, Total Information Awareness, and pretty much every bit of the “big government up my ass” style that the GOP has now embraced.

  3. Young geniuses such as the head of college republicans at my school, sketching doodles of jackbooted thugs in riding pants.

I guess you missed the 1968 Democratic National Convention.

:bravo: :laughing: :bravo: :laughing:

comrade stalin, it seemed that Fred was at a loss for how the Republicans could be seen as authoritarian, etc. given their background as the party of “small government”. I thought it might be helpful to refresh his memory.

Record deficits under all the Republican presidents in the past quarter century, so I guess we can see who really are the big spenders in government. You can always trust a GOPster to spend money with the same responsibility of a crack whore.

I rather the GOP spend my tax dollars on M-4A1 carbines and cluster bombs than dry cleaning bills for presidential interns.

:bravo: :laughing: :bravo: :laughing:

Oh, and I bet you don’t mind handing over tons of money to companies run by administration cronies while troops in the field are left without proper equipment, food, water, etc. And I bet you don’t mind if presidents spend billions to send troops to invade the completely wrong country – whoops!

You don’t have very high expectations of elected government, do you?