All Episodes
Previous Next
June 4, 2013 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:31
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 anchorman, 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, you know, 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.
We'll come to that in a minute.
I just want to finish off a thought 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 a way to live way better than your neighbors do.
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, in effect, self-dealing, that they're committed.
They are beneficiaries of big government and they believe in ever bigger government because the bigger and the bigger and the bigger government gets, the more secure 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?
Matuchin?
Do you know where you know New Jersey well, HR?
Do you know where Matuchin is?
I just like the name of it.
I'm now going to be Butch Matuchin when I do my, as my porn stern.
Anyway, but apparently I rather like the sound of Matuchin, but she says it's like full of government workers.
And you know that.
You know what it's like when you go to those towns where somehow the most lucrative activity in the area is being in government.
And that's actually, if you look at the 10 wealthiest counties in the United States, all of them are either around Washington, D.C. or around state capitals.
Used to be that wealth was where industry was.
So the big sign of wealth would be where the big mills were, the big factories were, the big industrial towns.
You would see the rail yards snaking in, the stockyards.
Now the wealth is concentrated where government is.
And there's a problem that goes along with that.
That in effect 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, a permanent bureaucracy.
When I had my troubles up in Canada with the Human Rights Commissions and the free speech issues and the Canadian Islamic Congress trying to criminalize my writing, Americans used to write to me and they used to say, 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 trying to criminalize my writing and subject me to a lifetime publication ban, the woman who headed that commission was the Conservative appointee of a Conservative Minister of Justice of a Conservative Prime Minister of a Conservative government.
And yet, mysteriously, 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 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 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 157 times, which is 156 times more than his predecessor visited the White House.
There's nothing suspicious going on here because this guy, Douglas Shulman, 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 people have problems with George W. Bush.
But George W. Bush, one thing about him, he has what they call the touchy-feely types call a high EQ.
What's that called?
An empathy quotient, emotional quotient, or whatever it is.
He's a very empathetic guy.
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.
Ted Kennedy was such a good friend of George W. Bush's that George W. Bush passed Ted Kennedy's bill for him.
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 in Iraq.
So on the one hand, you've got Republicans saying, oh, my good friend the Democrat.
And you've got Democrats responded by saying, 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 non-partisan, and he's looking for a non-partisan public servant, civil servant, non-partisan figure to run the agency in a non-partisan way.
And he appoints a John Kerry donor.
And okay, everybody has to vote for somebody, and people give money to people.
And so maybe that's the fact that this guy 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.
But it then turns out that this guy, Shulman's wife, is a campaign finance activist.
Now, she's a political activist.
She's not just 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 funded by the Ford Foundation, the Streisand Foundation.
I didn't even know there was a Streisand Foundation.
And various labor units.
And their slogan is clean money, clean elections.
They produced a holiday card video a couple of Christmases back that said that the tagline 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 is campaign finance and money in politics.
Her group, Public Campaign, is both a 501c3 and a 501c4.
Public Campaign is a non-profit, non-partisan, 501c3 charitable organization.
It has an ongoing relationship with Public Campaign Action Fund, a non-profit, non-partisan 501c4 organization.
So she sees that's her obsession.
Get the Koch brothers.
Keep them from 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 the husband of a full-blown Occupy Wall Street public campaign, Streisand Foundation, Koch Brothers, obsessed left-wing loon with an with, as I said,
a pretty explicit conflict of interest.
Conflict of interest, that's how difficult it is for so-called Republican presidents, conservative presidents, to find people to run the so-called non-partisan bureaucracy.
Now they've just released today a report on how these guys live.
Again, to go back to Stephanie's point, 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 4.1 million dollars and they lived at and they stayed in $3,500 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?
Are you self-employed?
You watch your expenses pretty carefully.
You're not jetting around first class.
You're not staying in $3,500 a night hotel rooms 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're staying in a motel 6.
So you're watching because because 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 $17,000.
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 and Lois Lerner and Douglas Schulman 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.
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 accept that.
It used to be the thing 20 years ago.
People complained because public money was going to a crucifix floating in urine or a picture of the 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 Division's IRS conference in Anaheim, California.
This guy who gave the, oh, apparently he was paid $27,500 when you include his travel expenses, because wherever he was coming from, so he got 17 grand for the speech, but it cost another 10,500 to fly him to Anaheim, because I guess he flew in from Waziristan or Tajikistan or somewhere.
According to the contract signed by the IRS, this speaker was uniquely qualified because he will, quote, share how seemingly random combinations of ideas can drive radical 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 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 $27,500 to fly in a speaker to do a painting of Bono for IRS agents.
You guys should be mad about this.
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 $27.5,000 to fly in a guy 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 12.5% corporate tax rate.
So that's too high for Bono.
But in America, the IRS Small Business Self-Employed Division pays $27.5 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 infersh on the EIB network.
Let's go to Mike in Davis, Utah.
Mike, you're live on the Rushlingbush show.
Great to have you with us.
Hey, Mark, nice to be with you.
Not to be confused with Mike over in Aspen, Colorado.
I think Mike had a lowercase boy chromosome there.
Well, He had like the old elephant tranquilizer dart 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 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.
We have this thing called impeachment.
Everybody confuses impeachment as only applying to the president.
It does not.
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 is 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 sitting at home enjoying her 200 grand a year, not having to do anything.
I mean, that's how we punish.
That's how government punishes people.
It kind of puts them on a tough route to go.
But no, I think that the interesting thing about impeachment, too, is although the House has to vote just by simple majority to impeach someone, and the Senate has to vote two-thirds majority to convict, and it is only removal from office.
This is what was used in Britain and other places to remove corrupt officials that the president or the king in those cases or the czar, whoever, comes from English law.
You can remove a corrupt official, but the legislative branch still has force to do that.
That's right.
I think that would be an interesting ingredient to add to the soup, is to say we're going to impeach any IRS agent who has been active in this because they have to pay for their own attorneys, but that would be a way, because I don't think the Justice Department is going to go for a special prosecutor.
I don't think they're going to prosecute Lois Lerner until 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 in a relatively swift fashion.
And then it's down for, as you say, it would need a two-thirds majority in the Senate, and there's whatever there are now, 52 or 54 Democrats plus Independents.
But it would actually make them, it would oblige them to take this seriously and actually act in defense of them, 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's actually a good idea.
I mean, nobody's going to impeach the president, and nobody's going to impeach the vice president.
But this is a woman who basically took the Fifth Amendment, Mike, and decided that that was not incompatible with remaining in her U.S. 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 Anaheim, California in the $3,500 suites being treated to paintings of Bono live on stage to amuse them.
She's basically enjoying that now round the clock.
She's at home 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 24-7 subscriber, you can get rush any time of the day or night in any form you want.
You can get audio, you can get transcripts, you got the ditto cam, you got video from the old TV show.
You got rush round the clock when you want on your time, whenever you'd like to listen, read, or watch Rush.
Rushlimbore.com become a Rush 24-7 subscriber.
But Rush himself, the man himself, will be back live at 12 midday tomorrow.
It's always different when liberals do it.
That's the thing.
It's like 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 called Grist.
Scientists plan to reduce greenhouse gases by breeding non-flatulent cows.
Because, you know, when they talk about your SUV, basically your SUV does a lot less damage.
It contributes a lot less to global warming than Daisy the Holstein grazing in your field.
So in other words, I've got a neighbor of mine in New Hampshire whose dairying business has pretty much collapsed.
So he's down to like two cows now, but he's got like seven rusting pickups sitting in his field.
Well, those seven pickups are belching their emissions and doing far less damage to the environment than his three surviving cows.
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, whereby it would impose a tax on farmers, dairy farmers, beef farmers, a flatulence tax on the methane emissions of their cattle.
And now we see that they've gone beyond that.
By the way, that's how crazy the world is when we talk about public service.
In the old days, one of the sad things about the world now is that back in medieval times, Tocqueville talks about this, and he's absolutely right.
The emperor, in theory, had absolute power, but he was in his palace hundreds of miles away, and you were just in your broken down rude peasant hovel, and he couldn't actually do a lot to bug you.
Once in a while, he'd send in some pantalooned emissary to tell you that you owed three groats to the king's treasury or whatever.
But he couldn't actually monitor you 24-7 a day.
Now they're talking, now in the European Union, they were talking about a regime under which 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.
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, my good man, I'm here to collect the flatulence tax.
Your rude peasant would have said, ah, the flatulence tax, that don't seem right to me.
I don't want flatulence taxes.
It's ridiculous.
Now people take flatulence tax seriously.
Now they've moved to the next stage.
The scientists are going to reduce greenhouse gases.
They're going to reduce global warming by breeding cows, non-flatulent cows.
I don't know how it's all going to, I don't know how it's all going to work out.
I don't know how it's going to keep them all pent up or whatever.
But 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, environmentalists and liberals recoil from it, like the villagers in Frankenstein's village, 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, Well, here you've got a 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.
And yet, suddenly, when it's about, when it's on their side of the issue, they, well, how are we going to save the planet?
We need to reduce global warming.
The polar bears are dying.
The polar bears are dying.
The ice caps are melting.
How are we going to do it?
We're going to breed.
We're going to breed cows.
We're going to 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, 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 Charlton Heston sinking to his knees on the sand and he realizes that in the original that 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 going to go.
Now, this headline: Scientists plan to reduce greenhouse gases by breeding non-flatulent cows.
And next thing you know, we're going to be, someone should do a 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, it's like if you've 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.
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.
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 going to be some tax break.
If you slaughter your herd of cows and you replace it with the non-flatulent cows, and then you apply for the non-flatulent bovine herd tax deduction.
No, it's not a flat tax.
It's a non-flat ULAN tax.
You will have, by the way, if you still, if you insist on not changing over to the non-flatulent cows, you will be guilty of the flatulent tax.
And you can just bet that when that comes up at the Supreme Court, 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 the federal government would need the power to tax flatulence.
But this is how scientists plan to reduce greenhouse gases by breeding non-flatulent cows.
It's different when liberals do it.
When this is for their great cause, saving the planet, then it is okay to tax non-flatulant cows.
We've been talking about, by the way, we've been talking about the IRS powers.
And you know, what I love about these official reports is they have 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 U.S. Treasury website, and you read this review of the August 2010 Small Business Self-Employed Divisions Conference in Anaheim, California, it just contains these flat sentences, right?
The IRS, 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 Montelbarn 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 $2,400.
Okay, let's just stop right there.
Why does the IRS have its own television studio?
What's that for?
Are they in television production now?
Are they doing some sitcom with Lois Lerner?
I love Lois.
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 just sent me a tweet or an email about this paying some guy $27,500 to fly to Anaheim to do a painting of Bono, Bono, the rock singer, the rock guy from U2.
This guy, Matthew Cowitt, goes, hey, it gives a whole new meaning to you two's I still haven't found what I'm looking for in your 501c4 application.
Mark Stein in for Rush, 1-800-282-2882.
Mark Stein in for Rush on the EIB network.
Great to have you with us.
Let us go to Allison in Wyoming.
Allison, 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, Allison?
Well, 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 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 prompted me to call was when you were talking about seven years, the IRS being able to go back seven years.
Really, there's a three-year statute of limitation civilly.
They can only go back and examine a tax return three years from the date it was filed.
That's the same thing.
But you kind of wanted your listeners to have the facts on that.
Okay, so you're saying that you're only legally obligated to have all your bits of paperwork for three years.
Well, basically.
You sit 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 10 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, but you're conceding there's a kind of I mean, 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 purchased that piece of.
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 anyway, I just wanted to make clear to you that 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 depreciating or amortizing it, yes.
Exactly.
And this is the problem, Alison.
Now, I take it, you know, you're an IRS agent.
I am a small government guy, but I accept that in order to fund the legitimate responsibilities of government, all governments need to have a revenue agency that administers the legitimate collection of taxes from the citizens.
But we have a situation here.
Now, I said this at the beginning of the show.
I think that one of the problems with the IRS is that they get to act as prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner.
In other words, that 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 number one law enforcement official in the United States, and he can't wiretap a journalist without getting a judge to authorize him to do that.
Why shouldn't an IRS agent, when she wants to take out a lien on your property, have to get a judge to sign off on that?
Well, I could explain two things real quick.
I'm a retired special agent, so my area of expertise is really in criminal prosecutions.
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 what you're talking about in the tax-exempt organization or in the SDFE organization is a civil matter where the burden of proof is on the individual.
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, like in the OJ case, when he was found not guilty in the criminal case, but then a civil suit was brought against him.
We're not talking about that here, because when the government, which has enormous powers, has ultimate powers to do what it wants, it's not a civil case in any reasonable understanding of that That would be 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 that the citizen should be entitled to the normal protections he would if the state wanted to prosecute him for murder or rape or anything else, Allison.
Right.
You know, I guess civilly the government is relying on you to provide information.
Those groups that were applying for tax-exempt status 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 requirement under the law.
And, of course, everybody does like to bash the IRS.
I learned that real well in 27 years.
But Congress is the one that writes the laws.
No, I understand that, Alison.
And we'll pick that up as the show goes on because it's an essential point here.
I've got to run because we got a break.
But that's the point.
Congress writes these laws very loosely, 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 discuss that more as we continue on the Rush Limbaugh Show.
If that guy who got 27 and a half grand to do a picture of Bono for IRS conference attenders still needs work, Gitmo is advertising for an instructor to teach terrorists watercolor painting.
Gitmo is hiring a painter to teach terrorists to paint watercolors.
▲
Export Selection