All Episodes
Previous Next
June 4, 2013 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:32
June 4, 2013, Tuesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Yes, don't worry, America.
The man himself returns live for full strength all American excellence in broadcasting tomorrow.
But for the moment The Excellence in Broadcasting Network has been fiscally responsible and outsourced the show to cheap foreign labor.
This is Mark Stein, your undocumented anchor man here for the rest of today's show.
And you know, as I said, EIB is being fiscally responsible.
When Rush goes away, they think, uh, you know, you could you could probably get an American guest host, but let's try and get some cheap foreign labor in here.
No such considerations apply when the IRS spends money on a conference.
Uh we're we'll come to that in a minute.
I just want to finish off a s a thought that that Stephanie put in my head when she was talking about public service and public servants.
And we use this phrase, and somehow we think it's more noble to forswear to forego the profits of the private sector and instead dedicate your life to public service.
And it isn't.
For many people now, it's it's a way to live way better than than your neighbors do.
Uh and but it's also true that the bigger government gets, the more of a problem you will have filling those jobs with people who are not uh in effect self-dealing, that they're committed.
They they they are beneficiaries of big government and they believe in ever bigger government, because the bigger and the bigger and the bigger government uh gets, the more secure uh they are, and the more lucrative it is for them.
And as in that town, what was that town in New Jersey that Stephanie lived in, Matuchin?
What Metuchin Do you know where Ma you you know New Jersey well, HR, do you know where Metutchin is?
I just like the name of it.
I'm now gonna be Butch Metouchin when I do my as my pawn star name.
Anyway, but apparently I I rather like the sound of Metutchin, but she says it's like full of government workers.
And you know that.
You know what it's like uh when you go to those towns where somehow the most lucrative air activity in the area is being in government.
And that's actually if you look at the ten wealthiest counties in the United States, uh all of them are either around Washington, DC or around state capitals.
Used to be that the that wealth was where industry was.
So uh you the big sign of w wealth would be where the big mill uh the big mills were, the big factories were, the big industrial towns.
Uh you would see the rail yards uh snaking in, the stockyards.
Now the wealth is concentrated where government is.
And there's a problem there's a problem that goes along with that.
Uh that in effect the uh the elected representatives, the people we call the government, are no longer the government.
They're a kind of thin elected veneer on top of a permanent government, uh a permanent bureaucracy.
Uh when I when I had my troubles uh up in Canada with uh the human rights commissions and the free speech issues and the Canadian Islamic Congress trying to criminalize my writing, uh Americans used to write to me and they used to say, What's you know what you need to do, Stein?
You need to get Canadians steamed up about this, and maybe they'll elect a conservative government that will put an end to all this.
And I then had to explain that in fact there was a conservative government in Canada under a Conservative Prime Minister, and the Human Rights Commission that was uh trying to criminalize my writing and uh subject me to a lifetime publication ban.
Uh the woman who headed that uh that commission was the conservative appointee of a conservative minister of justice uh of a conservative prime minister of a conservative government.
Uh and yet mysteriously uh it was business as usual for those guys.
And I had a conversation with a Canadian cabinet minister about this, and he said, Well, you don't really realize it when you're in opposition.
Then when you're elected and you suddenly realize you have all these positions to fill in the permanent bureaucracy, you have to find so-called public servants to serve in all these positions.
And you realize there just aren't that many conservatives out there who are working in government, who are doing government jobs, who want to be running uh various kind of government bureaucracies and all the rest of it, and the pickings are very thin.
Which brings us back to the IRS.
The great talking point of uh the Democrats has been, oh well, this Douglas Shulman under whose on whose watch all this stuff started.
Douglas Shulman, this guy who visited the Obama White House a hundred and fifty-seven times, which is uh a hundred and fifty-six times more than his predecessor visited the White House.
This uh there's nothing suspicious going on here because this guy, Douglas Shulman, i was a Bush appointee.
And they're right.
Douglas Shulman was appointed by Bush in 2005.
In 2004, he was giving money to the John Kerry campaign.
Now, Bush is a w the people have problems with George W. Bush.
But George W. Bush, one thing about him, he has what they call uh the touchy-feely types call a high EQ.
Uh what's that called?
An empathy quotient?
Emotional quotient or whatever it is.
He's very he's a very empathetic guy.
He likes he likes people, he likes everybody.
He likes his political opponents.
Remember the way he always used to talk about my good friend when he was passing No Child Left Behind, my good friend Ted Kennedy.
Uh Ted Kennedy was such a good friend of George W. Bush's that George W. Bush passed Ted Kennedy's uh bill for him.
He uh d George W. Bush got on board with that.
My good friend Ted Kennedy.
Ted Kennedy reciprocated by calling George W. Bush the torturer in chief uh in Iraq.
Uh so on the one hand, you've got Republicans uh saying, oh, my good friend the Democrat, and you've got Democrats responded by saying uh the the uh the Republican torturer across the way.
So George W. Bush has to appoint a head of the IRS.
And he's such a nice guy, and he's so nonpartisan, and he's looking for a nonpartisan public servant, civil servant, uh nonpartisan figure to run the agency in a nonpartisan way, and he appoints a John Kerry donor.
And okay, everybody has to vote for somebody and uh people give money to people, and so maybe maybe that's the fact that this guy uh is a Democrat voter and a John Kerry donor.
Maybe it doesn't matter.
Maybe he can still run the IRS in a non-partisan way.
Uh but it then turns out that this guy Shulman's wife is a campaign finance activist.
Now she's a political activist.
Um she's she's not just some a Democrat voter.
She's not just a Democrat who gives money to John Kerry.
She's full-blown occupy Wall Street, this woman, and her big cause is money in politics.
Right?
Money in politics.
That's her big explicit cause.
She's not interested in starving children in the third world.
She's not interested in global warming.
Her big cause is money in politics.
She's with this group, Public Campaign, which is uh an a funded by the Ford Foundation, the Strisand Foundation.
I didn't even know there was a Streisand Foundation, and various uh and various labor units.
And their slogan is clean money, clean elections.
Uh they produced a a holiday card video a couple of Christmases back that said that the tagline uh is sure my kids might get asthma because Congress keeps doing dirty energies bidding.
But the Koch brothers need their third home.
So she's not just soft Democrat, she's hardcore, foaming Occupy Wall Street Democrat, and she has a pretty clear conflict of interest.
Her big obsession, obsession, is campaign finance and money in politics.
Her group, Public Campaign, is both a 501c3 and a 501c4.
Uh Public Campaign is a non-profit, nonpartisan, 501c3 charitable organization.
It has an ongoing relationship with Public Campaign Action Fund, a non-profit nonpartisan 501c4 organization.
So she's she sees she's that's her obsession.
Get the Koch brothers, keep them from uh keep them from pol uh active political participation.
Get Karl Rove, keep him from active political participation.
And she's climbing into bed every night with the commissioner of the IRS who supervises 501c3 and 501c4 applications.
And George W. Bush, George W. Bush, this Texan warmongering cowboy to the left.
He's such a Texan warmongering cowboy that he that that that even he cannot find somebody to run supposedly his IRS other than uh the husband of a full-blown Occupy Wall Street public campaign, Streisand Foundation, Koch Brothers obsessed left-wing loon, uh, with an with a, as I said, a pretty explicit uh conflict of interest, conflict of interest.
That's how difficult it is for so-called uh f Republican presidents, conservative presidents, to find people to run the so-called nonpartisan bureaucracy.
Now, they've just released today a report on how these guys live.
Again, to go back to Stephanie's point.
Uh public servants are supposed to be our servants.
Instead, as Becky Gerritson testified in Congress today, we are their serfs and vassals.
I was talking earlier about this conference at which they spent four point one million dollars and they lived at uh and and they stayed in f $3500 a night hotel suites.
Just to just to make this a joke too far.
This wasn't just any old IRS conference.
This was the small business, self-employed divisions conference in Anaheim, California in August 2010.
Are you a small business person?
Uh are you self-employed?
Uh you watch your expenses pretty carefully.
You're not jetting around first class, you're not staying in thirty-five hundred dollar a night hotel rooms.
Uh when you when you have to go on a business trip, you're staying in a comfort inn.
Uh and that's if you're treating yourself.
Maybe you stand in a Motel 6.
So you're watching because you 'cause you're you're self-employed or you're a small business.
So you know, you know, there's no one who's going to sign off on your expenses account except you.
So you've got to keep it within the realm of reality.
And yet the IRS, small business, self-employed division, when they hold a conference, people stay in thirty five hundred dollar a night hotel rooms.
Now, in this official report into this, into this useless conference.
They're talking about the keynote speakers.
One keynote speaker was paid seventeen thousand dollars.
Uh this is from the report.
According to the contract signed by the IRS, this speaker was, quote, uniquely qualified to deliver this presentation because of the combination of his artistic abilities and his presentation skills.
In each presentation, he will create a unique painting that reinforces his message of unlearning the rules, breaking the boundaries, and freeing the thought process to find creative solutions to challenges, unquote.
Hey, that certainly worked, because the Cincinnati office uh and Lois Lerner and Douglas Sherman, they listened to this guy and they unlearned the rules, they broke the boundaries, and their thought processes were freed to find creative solutions to the challenge of Tea Party conservatism.
This is a guy this by the way, this kind of hackery used to just go on at the National Endowment of the Arts or the Public Television Subsidy.
And you ex and you accept that.
It's used to be the thing twenty years ago, people complained because public money was going to a crucifix floating in urine, uh, or a picture of the uh Virgin Mary covered in elephant dung.
Now, the picture of the Virgin Mary covered in elephant dung or the crucifix floating in urine is being used to inspire IRS attendees at the small business self-employed divisions uh IRS conference in Anaheim, California.
This guy who uh gave the oh apparently he was paid twenty-seven thousand five hundred when you include his travel expenses, because wherever he was coming from, so he got seventeen grand for the speech, but it cost another ten and a half thousand to fly him to Anaheim, because I guess he flew in from Waziristan or Tajikistan or somewhere.
Uh according to the contract signed by the IRS, uh, this speaker was uniquely qualified because uh he will, quote, share how seemingly random combinations of ideas can drive radical in innovations.
His concept of intersectional ideas illustrates how ideas from different fields can be combined to generate new solutions to existing challenges, unquote.
Well, you know, at the uh at the tax exempt office they certainly got the idea.
Do you know what that boils down to, by the way?
He stands on stage and he creates paintings.
He created a painting of Albert Einstein, he created a painting of Michael Jordan, and he created a painting of Bono.
The IRS, small business, self employed division paid twenty-seven thousand five hundred dollars to fly in a speaker to do a painting of Bono for IRS agents.
You guys should be mad about this.
You what why do you need why do you need a foreigner to tell you to get steamed about this stuff?
These guys have huge power over your lives, and you're letting them spend your money on twenty-seven and a half grand to fly in a guy uh to paint a painting of Bono for them.
Bono wouldn't go along with this.
Bono keeps his money in the Netherlands rather than pay tax in Ireland.
And Ireland has a twelve and a half percent corporate tax rate.
Uh that's uh but so b that's too high for Bono.
Uh but in in in America, the sell the IRS small business self-employed division pays twenty-seven and a half grand to fly in somebody to amuse IRS agents by doing a painting of Bono for them.
1-800-282-2882 will take your calls after this.
Mark Stein in for us on the EIB network.
Let's go to Mike in Davis, Utah.
David uh Mike, you're live on the Rush Limbaugh Show.
Great to have you with us.
Hey, Mark, nice to be with you.
Uh not to be confused with Mike over Nashville in Colorado.
I think Mike had a uh lowercase by chromosome there.
Well, he had uh he he'd had so he'd had like the old uh elephant uh tranquilizer dart uh shot in his butt, I think, just before he came on the air, because he had that almost eerily kind of modulated monotone voice that people have when they're listening yet to your stopped to make sure I heard all that he had to say and when it was over, I went, That's it.
But in any case, are you open to an idea?
Yes, I am.
Uh we have this thing called impeachment.
Everybody confuses impeachment is only applying to the president.
It does not.
Uh I just retired as a history teacher, and I can tell you, impeachment can be used against the president, vice president, and quote, all civil officers of the United States.
Lois Lerner's out there on paid vacation.
The House can vote to impeach her because she is a civil officer.
And then she has to go on trial in the Senate.
The interesting thing is all impeachment can do is removal from office, but that stops Lois Lerner from being on the public gravy train.
That's right.
That's right.
Because right now she's uh uh she's sitting at home in enjoying her two hundred grand a year and not having to do anything.
I mean, that's how we punish that's how government punishes people.
It it kind of puts them on it.
But no, I I think that the the interesting thing about impeachment, too, is uh although the House has to vote just by simple majority to impeach someone, and the Senate has to uh vote two-thirds majority to convict.
And it is only um it is only uh removal from office.
This is what was used in Britain and other places to remove corrupt officials that the president or the king in in those cases, or the sorry whoever uh comes from English law.
You can remove a corrupt official, but the legislative branch still has force to do that.
That's that's right.
I think that would be an interesting um ingredient to add to the soup is to say we're gonna impeach any IRS agent who has been uh active in this because uh they and they have to pay for their own attorneys.
Uh but but that would be a way because I don't think the Justice Department is going to go for a uh special prosecutor.
I don't think they're gonna prosecute Lois Lerner now.
There's a new president.
No, and you're right, actually, that this would be a relatively easy way of doing this, because if the House were to think about this, the House could vote a Republican House could vote to impeach Lois Lerner by a simple majority, uh in in a relatively in a relatively swift fashion.
And then it's down for as you say, it would need uh uh a two-thirds majority in the in the Senate, and there's whatever there are now fifty-two or fifth uh fifty-four Democrats plus independents.
Uh but it would actually make them, it would oblige them to take this seriously and act actually act um uh in defense of them, to cast to cast positive votes for Lois Lerner.
So it actually would be a good way of saying to Democrats, you need to demonstrate how seriously you take this.
I think that I think that's actually a good idea.
I mean, nobody's going to impeach the president, and nobody's gonna impeach the vice president.
But this is this is a woman who basically took the Fifth Amendment, uh, Mike, and and uh decided that that uh was not incompatible with remaining in her US government job.
She remains doing the job in charge of tax exempt organizations that she was doing beforehand.
She's just on vacation, like those guys out in Anaham, California in the thirty-five hundred uh dollar suites uh being treated to paintings of uh of Bono live on stage to amuse them.
She's basically enjoying that now round the clock.
She's at home uh on the dime.
Let's impeach her, let's get her before the Senate.
Yes, Rush returns live tomorrow.
Don't forget if you go to Rushlimbore.com and you become a rush twenty-four-seven subscriber, uh, you can get rush any time of the day or night in any form you want.
You can get audio, you can get uh transcripts, uh you got the ditto cam, you got uh video from the old TV show, uh you got rush round the clock when you want on your w on on your time, uh, whenever you'd like to listen, read or watch Rush.
Rush Limbaugh.com become a rush twenty-four-seven subscriber.
Uh but Rush himself, the man himself will be back live at twelve midday tomorrow.
Um it's always different when when uh liberals do it.
That's that's that's the thing.
It's like there's it w what makes it very hard to deal with things like the IRS is that there's no consistency, because it just tends to be on what liberal whim happens to be going through their minds at the time.
And I was thinking about that when I saw this story, which is at a website uh called Grist.
Uh scientists plan to reduce greenhouse gases by breeding non-flatulent cows.
Because you know, when they talk about your SUV, basically uh your SUV does a lot less damage.
It contributes a lot less to global warming than Daisy the Holstein grazing in your field.
Uh so in other words, I've got I've got a neighbor of mine in New Hampshire who's whose uh dairying business is pretty much collapsed, so he's down to like two car cows now, but he's got like seven rusting pickups sitting in his field.
Well, those seven pickups uh are belching their emissions and doing far less damage to the environment than his three surviving cows.
Uh and so now, and this is by the way, this is not this is a serious issue.
The European Union, which has great financial woes, a couple of years back, was considering had reached actually a tentative agreement on a flatulence tax, uh, whereby it would impose a tax on farmers, dairy farmers, beef farmers, a flatulence tax on the methane emissions of their cattle.
And uh and now we see that they've gone beyond that.
Uh the here.
By the way, that's how crazy the world is when we talk about public service.
In the old days, in in in one one of the sad things about the world now is that uh back in medieval times, Toc Tockville talks about this, and he's absolutely right.
The the Emperor in theory had absolute power, but he was in his palace uh hundreds of miles away, and you were just in like your your broken down rude peasant hovel, and he couldn't actually do a lot to bug you.
Once in a while he'd he'd send in some pantalooned emissary uh to tell you that uh you owed three groats to the uh to the king's treasury or whatever, but he couldn't actually monitor you twenty-four-seven a day.
Now they're talking now that th in the European Union they were talking about a regime under which the uh the methane output of every cow you own would be assessed and you would be taxed on that.
You didn't have to worry about that in the medieval days.
You know, in in the and in the medieval days, a peasant still had enough self-respect that if the king's emissary came prancing into his dooryard in his pantaloons and got off his horse and said uh uh My good man, I'm I'm here to collect the flatulence tax.
Uh your rude peasant would have said, ah, the flatulence tax, I don't that don't seem right to me.
I don't know.
Flatulence taxes are ridiculous.
Now people take flatulence tax seriously.
Now they've moved to the next stage.
The scientists are gonna reduce greenhouse gases.
They're gonna reduce global warming by breeding cows, non-flatulent cows.
I don't know how it's all gonna I don't know how it's all gonna work out.
I don't know how it's all it's gonna keep them all pent up or whatever.
But non but but the point the point here is that liberals, right?
Environmentalists in particular are against genetic modification.
If you modify a if you have a genetically modified tomato, uh environmentalists and liberals recoil from it like like the villagers in in uh Frankenstein's village, uh when they're all carrying their torches and going up to Castle von Frankenstein and saying to Baron von Frankenstein, we've heard you've been making a monster here.
Now they don't care about the monster, but they said they'd go up to Baron von Frankenstein's castle and say, We hear you've got a gen gen you've been growing genetically modified tomatoes out the back.
They'd be mad about it.
They'd be steamed.
They recoil in a terror genetic what are they doing to us?
They're genetically modifying tomatoes.
It's causing all kinds of things.
It's causing that's probably behind Michael Douglas's tongue cancer.
It's nothing to do with him performing too much oral sex, as he says.
It's in fact the genetically modified arugula they've been serving him in his restaurant in Malibu.
They're terrified of this, terrified of this.
Uh and yet suddenly, when it's about uh when it's on their side of the issue, they well, how are we going to save the planet?
We're gonna we need to save them, we need to reduce global warming.
The polar bears are dying, the pol polar bears are dying, the ice caps are melting.
How are we gonna do it?
We're gonna breed.
We're gonna breed cows.
We're gonna breed non-flatulent cows.
You will be able, every every you will be able to drive around the cow pastures of America, and the corn will be high as an elephant's eye, and there will be a clear blue above it.
Because no cow is emitting any clouds of methane into the sky.
Because to save the planet, we have to breed non-flatulent cows.
You know, did you see that film Rise of the Planet of the Apes?
Rise of the Planet of the Apes that shows some intention, well-intentioned thing, little some little research on apes or whatever it is, and next thing you know, the apes are rise of the planet of the apes.
This is the one that comes before Planet of the Apes.
It came out a couple of years ago.
It's a prequel.
And we all know a planet of the apes ends with the Charlton Heston singing to his knees on the sand and he realizes that the uh uh in the original that the they blew up the Statue of Liberty and those crazy humans nuked each other and now the apes have taken over the world.
And in the new version, Rise of the Planet of the Apes, it's just a little bit of scientific experimentation.
And next thing you know, the apes are trashing San Francisco and they're waiting there to take over the planet.
And this is how it's gonna go.
Now, this headline.
Scientists plan to reduce greenhouse gases by breeding non-flatulent cows.
Uh and next thing you know, we're gonna be uh someone should do a m movie of it, Rise of the Planet of the Cows, Rise of the Planet of the Cows, and how it all started as just a well-meaning liberal environmental program to reduce global warming and save the planet by having cows that do not emit methane, and next thing you know, the non-flatulent cows are running the place.
Anyway, that's how that's how it's like if you got your genetically modified tomato, that's a threat to life on earth.
But if you've got a genetically modified cow that cannot even break wind, which let's face it is all the cow has to do.
Cow's just standing there in the pasture all day.
He's got uh she's got flies flapping around her rudders, flapping around her tail.
There's nothing to do but break wind.
Nothing to do but break wind.
Uh yeah, one of the few pleasures of bovine life has been taken from them by liberal environmentalists.
A cow will now just have to stand there.
I don't even know where it goes.
And you just know, by the way, this empowers the lowest learner, too, the lowest learners of the world, too.
Because there's gonna be some tax break.
If you if you if you slaughter your slaughter your herd of cows and you replace it with the non-flatulant cows.
Uh you just and and then you apply for the non-flatulent bovine herd tax deduction.
That no, it's not a flat tax, it's a a non-flat Uland tax.
Uh this is you will have By the way, if you still if you insist on not changing over to the non-flatulent cows, you you will be guilty of the flatulent tax.
And you just you can just bet that when that comes up at the Supreme Court.
Uh uh John Roberts will rule that it is in fact entirely legitimate for the federal government to impose a tax on flatulence.
That somehow that's there in the penumbra in the murky cloudy penumbra of the Constitution, the flatulence is there that the founders had cunningly foreseen that one day uh the uh federal government would need the power to tax f uh to tax flatulence.
Uh but this this is how scientists plan to reduce greedhouse gases by breeding non flatulent cows.
Uh that's that's it's th it's different when liberals do it.
When this is for their great cause saving the planet then it is okay to tax nonflatulent cows.
We've been talking about by the way we've been talking about the the IRS powers.
Uh and you know what I love about these official reports is they have uh they they they explain everything and they lay it out in very matter of fact language.
So if you go to whatever it is the Inspector General for Tax Administration at the US Treasury website and you read this review of the August 2010 Small Business Self Employed Divisions Conference in Anaheim, California it it just contains these flat sentences, right?
The IRS to for its lame Star Trek video lame Star Trek video isn't a good Star Trek video.
It's very hard to make bad Star Trek movies.
Because it's easy to do.
You get Ricardo Montalban as Khan, and everything just kicks in.
But the IRS managed to make the only bad Star Trek video.
They constructed a mock set this is what it says from the report.
The IRS constructed a mock set at its television studio located in New Carrollton, Maryland at a cost of twenty four hundred dollars.
Okay, let's just stop right there.
Why does the IRS have its own television studio?
Are they in are they well what's that for?
Are they in uh are they in television production now?
Uh are they doing uh uh uh uh they're doing uh some uh sitcom with Lois Lanner I love Lois uh what what do they need a TV studio for?
It's just there in black and white.
The IRS constructed a mock set at its television studio located in New Carrollton, Maryland.
Why does the IRS have a television studio?
Why do they pay by the way somebody uh just sent me a tweet or an email about this paying bar paying some guy twenty seven and a half thousand dollars to fly to Anaheim uh to uh to do uh to do a painting of Bono Bono the rock singer the rock guy from U2.
This guy Matthew Cowitt goes hey gives a whole new meeting meaning to you twos I still haven't found what I'm looking for in your 501c4 application.
Mark Steinin for Rush 1800 28282 Mark Stein in for Rush on the EIB network great to have you with us.
Let us go to Alison in Wyoming.
Alison you're live on America's number one radio show.
I'm good thanks how are you?
Doing well What's on your mind today, Alison?
Well um a comment that you made about 45 minutes ago kind of prompted me to call in I'm a retired IRS agent and I just also want to say um that I'm pretty much appalled as I think probably most IRS employees are about what's going on this controversy with the tax exempt unit.
But what what prompted me to call was when you were talking about uh seven years the IRS being able to go back seven years and really there's a three year statute of limitation uh civilly they can only go back and examine a tax return three years from the date it was filed.
That's I just kind of wanted your listeners to have the facts on that.
Okay, so you're saying that the you're only legally obligated to to have doc to to have every all your bits of paperwork for three years.
Well they're back and audit three years back.
But you might have to keep some documents longer than that if you want to establish your basis in a property or an asset or something.
You know you might keep a piece of equipment ten years or something so you have to be able to prove your basis in an asset if you're audited, but they can only go back three years.
Yeah no but you're but you're but you're you're can you're conceding there's a there's a kind of I mean you you're saying for example if you bought a piece of equipment that you amortized over a particular period and you were deducting a certain amount every year they could go back and demand the original documentation for when you purchase that piece of uh they could to establish the basis that you're depreciating absolutely equipment generally would be five years, maybe seven years.
Some might have a longer life than that.
But um but anyway, just wanted to make clear that um they could only go back three years on an audit.
But then if you bought a piece of equipment five years prior to that, you might have to prove what you paid for it if you're if you're depreciating or amortizing it, yes.
Exactly.
So there's there's and and this is the problem, Alison.
Now I take it uh, you know, you you're a you're an IRS agent.
I I uh am a small government guy, but I accept that uh in order to fund the legitimate responsibilities of government, uh all governments need to have a revenue agency uh that administers uh the legitimate collection of uh taxes from the citizens.
But we have a situation here.
Now I said this at the beginning of the show.
I think w the one of the problems with the IRS is that they get to act as prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner.
In other words, the the that the the IRS does not have to do what Eric Holder does when Eric Holder wants to wiretap a journalist, he has to get a judge to sign off on that.
Eric Holder is the the number one law enforcement official in the United States, and he can't wiretap a journalist uh without getting a judge to authorize him to do that.
Why shouldn't an IRS agent when when uh she wants to take out a lien on your property have to get a judge to sign off on that?
Well, I I could explain um two things real quick.
I'm a retired special agent, so my uh area of expertise is really in criminal prosecutions.
But um and and so the difference is civilly the burden of proof is on the individual, and criminally the burden of proof is on the government.
Right.
So and and what you're talking about in the tax exempt uh organization or in the FDSE organization is a civil matter where the burden of proof is on the individual.
Except except Alison, I mean, this is a fascinating this is actually a fascinating point.
It's not really a civil matter as that term is understood, because it is the government that is the other party in a civil dispute.
So you're right that in most civil disputes, uh like in like in the O.J. case, uh when he was uh when when he was found not guilty uh in the criminal case, but then a civil suit was bought brought against him.
Uh we're not talking about that here, because when the government uh which has enormous powers, uh has ultimate powers to do what it wants.
It's not a civil case in any reasonable understanding of that, uh that would that would be that the any reasonable accepted understanding, the government is not a party to civil cases.
When state power is wielded against the citizen, I think by definition, uh that the the citizen should be entitled to the normal protections uh he would if the state wanted to prosecute him for murder or rape or anything else, Alison.
Right.
Um, I I guess civil the government um is relying on you to provide information.
Those groups that were applying for tax exempt status uh in a in an up in an organization that's operating within the rules and guidelines that we have established, they have things that they have to produce and documents that they have to submit as a as a requirement under the law, and of course everybody does like to bash the IRS.
I learned that real well in twenty-seven years, but Congress is the one that writes the laws.
No, I and I underst I understand that, Alison, and we'll pick that we'll pick that up as the show goes on, because it's an it's an essential point here.
I gotta run uh because we got a we got a break.
But that's that's the point.
Congress writes these laws very loosely and then uh uh and then officials of the permanent bureaucracy interpret them.
And that Accords a wide degree of power to people whose names you don't know, ultimate power over everything you own.
We'll we'll discuss that more uh as we continue on the Rush Limbaugh Show.
If that guy who got uh twenty-seven and a half grand uh to do a picture of Bono for IRS conference attenders still needs work, uh Gitmo is advertising for an instructor to teach terrorists watercolor painting.
Gitmo is hiring a painter to teach terrorists to paint watercolors.
▲
Export Selection