That's not for the IRS to decide. If laws are being broken or public safety has been threatened as in your "kill people" example, then it's up the DOJ to investigate, not the IRS. The IRS deals with tax law and punishing those who have cheated on their taxes. None of these groups have been charged with cheating on their taxes. By applying for tax-exempt status, they were actually attempting to follow the law. It was their applications that were scrutinized, not their tax forms.

Also, there is nothing illegal about wanting lower taxes or protecting traditional marriage. For that matter, it is the traditional marriage groups who are trying to preserve the law as it stands now. Under your criteria, shouldn't pro-gay-marriage groups gain extra scrutiny? You said that the TEA Party groups should get extra attention because they are trying to change the law as it stands? If that is your criteria for extra scrutiny, than any group supporting changes in any policy should be scrutinized, including anti war groups, and anti corporate groups.

  The IRS is not supposed to base it's application of policy based on politics, PERIOD. IRS employees are not allowed to pick and choose which law-changing groups they investigate based on their personal opinions of which laws need to be changed.

And the retaliation in this case was the IRS delaying the status for years while approving those groups on the opposite end of the political spectrum. You may think it's OK for the IRS to decide the level of investigation groups receive based solely on their political beliefs, but even the President of the United States and the IRS itself disagrees with you. They have both feigned outrage and apologized for the targeting of conservative groups and have sworn investigations to prevent it from happening again (not that it matters as the goal of reelecting Obama has already been achieved).

Free speech is free. We are allowed to disagree with our government and say so out loud and publicly without fear of retaliation. That includes the right to speak out against tax policy without the IRS suppressing you.

But this goes beyond the TEA Party and their political stance for lower taxes and responsible government spending. Conservative groups that have nothing to do with taxes were also targeted. Pro Life and groups against gay marriage were also targeted. This proves that the targeting was not related to their tax policy, but their political views in general. That is an extreme violation of the First Amendment. The fact that "progressive" groups were given tax exempt status without the same scrutiny violates the 14th Amendment clause that guarantees equal protection under the law. Frankly, if all these groups were given the same scrutiny regardless of their political views, this would not be an issue. But since this scrutiny was only given to one side because of their political views, we have a problem.

I don't trust a government with everyone's phone records that will abuse power like that to silence the political opposition.

To be fair, this program is currently legal. I don't think it will pass Constitutional muster if it ever hit the courts, but that hasn't happened yet. The appropriate course of action would be to challenge this law in the courts rather than releasing classified data.

On the other hand, you can't challenge a law if you don't know about it. Without this release, the law could not be challenged until the program was to gather evidence used to prosecute a citizen.

I don't have a problem with the government gathering this data to fight terrorism. Unfortunately, this administration has shown that it has no problem abusing government agencies to punish political opponents.

Right wing movements don't use government power to seize industry.

You are mostly correct. Obama is in charge of the Executive Branch, which includes the IRS, EPA, NSA, FBI, CIA and so on. All it would have taken is a phone call to whoever is in charge of the NSA to say, "stop doing that", and it would be done.

He would need Congressional action to prevent the next president from doing it, however, but there is nothing in the PATRIOT act mandating that the NSA snoop on US Citizens.

OK, but that doesn't mean it was "Bush's Congress".

It's irrelevant anyway. All it would have taken is an executive order as the NSA falls under the executive branch. That means that the NSA is under Obama's control, like the IRS, not Congress's. Congress passed the law ALLOWING the snooping. The law does not mandate it. No Congressional action needed, not that it would have been as hard as getting Obamacare passed.

You should really get your facts straight before you start calling other people ignorant. When they correct you, you just look like a douche bag.

I'm not in Europe. Obama is not in Europe. The NSA is not a European agency. This is not a discussion about the NSA keeping European phone records. Nothing in this article is about Europe. Now, if this were a discussion about world politics or European leaders, your post may have merit. Since this is a discussion purely about American subjects, comparing Obama to Europeans is off topic at best.

You are correct. The fact that George W. Bush's home was "greener" than Al Gore's shows that this is not a left/right issue. It also shows that Al Gore does not truly believe global warming.

The best way to pull the left/right tension out of the issue would be to stop calling people names and using hyperbole. Capitalist pigs are not out to destroy the world or enslave the masses just as commie-tree-huggers are not out to destroy business (most of them anyway). For example, those who believe that GW is a real problem would make better headway selling money (energy) saving solutions to business rather than force regulations down their throats. Capitalists love money. Use that.

Al Gore seems to have done quite well.

People have a nasty habit of thinking that the definition of "centrist" is someone who believes the same way they do. I believe you are one of these people. The fact that you think Obama is right wing means that you think 95% of the American public is "right wing". A true centrist in America would be one that has 50% of the population to his right and 50% to his left. Sorry, but Obama is far to the left of that making him NOT "thoroughly right-wing".

Back when I was 25, I had nothing to lose. Now, I can't really afford to lose the house that my family depends on trying to fight off an IRS audit. Even though I've done nothing wrong, I can't afford what it would cost to prove that against a government agency with unlimited funds, time, and ruthlessness.

And Ross Perot gave us eight years of Clinton.

Bush's Congress? You mean control of both chambers of Congress with supermajority control of the Senate?

Sorry, Jack. That don't fly. Obama had absolute control of Congress and chose not to touch this issue.

At least you are consistent:
When Bush was president and we learned of secret courts used to authorize snooping under FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) when one of the ends of the connection was based overseas, you blamed Bush.

Now that Obama is president and he snoops on all calls within the US using the same FISA (FOREIGN Intelligence Surveillance Act) law, you blame Bush.

See! Your reaction is the same. No partisan bias at all.

1% of a lot of money is still a lot of money. Businesses that do more business can afford to take smaller profit margins because they deal with such larger volumes. For example, a convenience store that does $10,000 worth of business over a weekend won't make it on 1% profit. That's a mere $100. But a grocery store that does $1,000,000 over that same weekend will do just fine on the same 1% as that is $10,000 profit.

$10,000 buys a lot more technical investment than $100.