The SS (Schutzstaffel - Protection Squad) or the IRS ?

Team Obama: The Know Nothing Presidency.

Holder agreed with the hacking of the AP, but said he didn't approve it. Talk about out of control underlings if the AG isn't lying.

In the least... this show's the general mindset of liberal federal employees. Remember Joe the Plumber... a government worker leaked his personal info to the public... information regarding his financial matters and the such? Even if the administration had nothing to do with the IRS's disproportionate snooping into conservative 501(4)c groups ... all it takes are some moral-lacking liberals to take it upon themselves to pull stunts like this. It's automatic... they spring into action... with no fear of reprisal.

Hell... look at their inspiration... Obama having a judge release sealed divorce proceedings of his Illinois GOP opponent Ryan. Chicago thug politics and politicians. An attorney general who turns a blind eye to federally sponsored gun running.

No... the left needs no particular orders from on high. They are a corrupt mind-hive bunch... folks that you wouldn't trust your back too. Crooks and creeps.

And now the IRS illegally accessed millions of personal healthcare records. No boundaries with these guys, are there? HIPPA? Who cares? We don't need no stinkin badges!

FredHayek wrote: And now the IRS illegally accessed millions of personal healthcare records. No boundaries with these guys, are there? HIPPA? Who cares? We don't need no stinkin badges!

And as of this point, I'm not sure how the new IRS regulations of tracking citizens health care coverage meets meets with HIPAA regulations. My programming duties require me to access personal patient information on a daily basis and I had to be HIPAA certified to work in this capacity.

It's a good point Fred... I hadn't given it a thought up to now since that wouldn't affect me directly... but I would be curious. I'm going to have to look over my current HIPAA information to see if they address that.

Lies and more lies... even the NYT is catching them...

It is clear that the I.R.S. headquarters in Washington was far more involved in the effort than initially portrayed. A “sensitive case report” on Tea Party targeting was sent from Cincinnati to Lois Lerner, the head of the I.R.S.’s division for tax-exempt organizations, and another Washington official on April 19, 2010, more than a year before previously thought. Ms. Lerner told reporters on Friday that she learned of the effort in early 2012 through news media reports of Tea Party complaints.

Even before then, in mid-March 2010, 10 Tea Party cases appear to have been brought to the attention of another senior I.R.S. official in Washington, just two weeks after the Cincinnati effort began, according to the inspector general’s audit.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/16/us/ir ... anted=all&

Lying sacks of sh*t.

Something the Dog Said wrote: The commissioner does not "answer" to the Treasury secretary, but reports to the secretary. The secretary does not have the authority to fire the Commissioner. Commissioner Shulman was appointed by President Bush with the consent of the Senate, which by the way, did not filibuster to prevent an up or down vote from occurring, unlike the current Senate where the Republicans refuse to allow votes to go forward on presidential appointees.

What is really funny is that the GOP darling Marco Rubio just called for the resignation of the IRS Commissioner, even though there is presently not one since last November. Quite the rocket scientist. :rofllol This is the guy you are pushing for President.

You've been wrong on just about everything you've said about the IRS (with no links).

Guess what, the Treasury secretary just fired the acting IRS Commissioner (just as Rubio requested as an acting commissioner is still a commissioner).

While the IRS is similar to an independent agency by having a commissioner, the President (in this case via the Treasury secretary) can fire him at will unlike independent agencies where you need cause.

One distinction between an executive agency and an independent agency is that the president, typically, cannot dismiss the head of the latter without serious cause. Independent agencies include the Securities and Exchange Commission, the National Labor Relations Board, the Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Trade Commission.

By contrast, the law governing the I.R.S. states that the president can remove the commissioner at will. The commissioner reports to the secretary of the treasury through the deputy secretary.

http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/14/is-the-i-r-s-an-independent-agency/

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323716304578483102122589628.html

The President could of fired the commissioner who left last December too.

Obama fires the acting IRS chief who wasn't in power when this was going on? Brilliant. And you have to excuse Dog. Her echo chamber is so left of center and accountable to no one. It is like having the news filtered through Dennis Kucinich.

FredHayek wrote: Obama fires the acting IRS chief who wasn't in power when this was going on? Brilliant. And you have to excuse Dog. Her echo chamber is so left of center and accountable to no one. It is like having the news filtered through Dennis Kucinich.

I agree in the firing of the acting commissioner simply for the reason that he knew about the abuses by his own admission for about a year and never said anything about it.

He was also there when the abuses happened, though he worked under the former commissioner at the time. And if it could be proven that the former commissioner lied about no such abuses happening when he testified they were not, he should be prosecuted, IMO.

BTW, Dog also said the former commissioner was a Republican (not that it really matters). Again no link provided to support it. I've searched and can't find anything to prove he was a Republican. But I did find that he donated $500 to the Democratic National Committee in 2004 (before he was nominated). Doesn't sound like a Republican to me.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/douglas-shulman/gIQAjjnrAP_topic.html

You better your check your "facts", because as usual, you are wrong. The President did not fire acting director. He asked for his resignation.

Something the Dog Said wrote: You better your check your "facts", because as usual, you are wrong. The President did not fire acting director. He asked for his resignation.

So if he refused to resign, Obama would just say "ok, back to work then".