Header Image (book)

aowheader.3.2.gif

Tuesday, May 28, 2013

Updated Version Of "First They Came..."


The Statist Progressives' version of Martin Niemöller's "First They Came" (with a hat tip to Bob):
First they came for the Evangelicals
But they just want everyone to follow their oppressive rules
So I was fine with that

Then they came for the conservatives
But they are just greedy bastards who want to take away poor people's benefits,
So I was fine with that

Then they came for the gun owners
But we can't have crazy people shooting kids
So I was fine with that

Then they came for the Jews
But it's not fair that they run the world
So I was fine with that

Then they came for the homeschoolers
But they just want to brainwash their children
So I was fine with that

Then they came for the "preppers"
But they are just crazy anti-government agitators
So I was fine with that

Then they came for the Catholics
Because hey, why not?
So I was fine with that

So now that we're living in our glorious utopia
They came for me
And I can't imagine why everyone else is fine with that.
Bookworm opined about the above as follows, and I agree:
[T]he IRS attack on political groups that Democrats don’t like is the first link in that chain. We have to stand up and fight now, even if we weren’t specifically a conservative organization applying for tax-exempt status or a conservative millionaire demonized by Obama’s campaign machine.
Please take a few minutes of your time to listen to these words from Mark Levin.  Worth your time and consideration.

20 comments:

  1. Duck,
    The matter of 501(c)(4) “social welfare” exemptions goes way back -- to 1979, I believe.

    Both political parties have benefited from the IRS policy toward 501(c) groups.

    The issue now is as follows: Did the IRS target specific political groups so as to support a particular political party?

    The issue is NOT as follows, particularly with regard to the IRS scandal that has been in the news the past few weeks: Should the tax code be changed?

    Nobody -- Right, Left, or Center -- disputes that the IRS Tax Code is a convoluted mess that is easily manipulated for political gan.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The scandal is "Citizens United" and the way you fringe right wingers rolled over, sold out what was left of American democracy and listened to "Talent on Loan from Synthetic Morphine" told you that not allowing buying elections limited speech.

    And now we have the usual whining.

    Oh, here's why leftists dislike Obama and why there is such a huge disconnect when the right wing lotus eater call him a socialist

    ReplyDelete
  3. Duck,
    About Citizens United and the timeline related thereto:

    ...In the days since the Internal Revenue Service first disclosed that it had targeted conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status, new information has emerged from both the Treasury inspector general’s report and congressional testimony Friday that calls into question key statements made by Lois G. Lerner, the IRS’s director of the exempt organizations division.

    The clumsy way the IRS disclosed the issue, as well as Lerner’s press briefing by phone, were seen at the time as a public relations disaster. But even so, it is worth reviewing three key statements made by Lerner and comparing them to the facts that have since emerged.

    “But between 2010 and 2012, we started seeing a very big uptick in the number of 501(c)(4) applications we were receiving, and many of these organizations applying more than doubled, about 1500 in 2010 and over 3400 in 2012.”

    Lerner made this comment while issuing a seemingly impromptu apology at an American Bar Association panel. (It was later learned that this was a planted question — more on that below.) In her telling, the tax-exempt branch was simply overwhelmed by applications, and so unfortunate shortcuts were taken.

    But this claim of “more than doubled” appears to be a red herring. The targeting of groups began in early 2010, after the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. FEC was announced on Jan. 21. The ruling led to increased interest in a tax-exempt status known as 501(c)(4). Most charities apply under 501(c)(3), but under 501(c)(4), nonprofit groups that engage in “social welfare” can also perform a limited amount of election activity.

    At first glance, the inspector general’s report appears to show that the number of 501(c)(4) applications actually went down that year, from 1,751 in 2009 to 1,735.

    But it turns out that these are federal fiscal-year figures, meaning “2010” is actually Oct. 1, 2009 to Sept. 30, 2010, so the “2010” year includes more than three months before the Supreme Court decision was announced.
    ...

    ReplyDelete
  4. The "scandal," Ducky, is that our government is an out of control beast, beholden to corporate crooks and financial pirates, while low-level servile serpents abuse the power of the state to benefit whoever the political masters are at the time.

    Time to prune it back, for the good of us all, liberal, conservative, libertarian, whatever.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Ducky said:

    "The scandal is "Citizens United""

    Not at all. The scandal is the atrocious law which "Citizens United" overturned, which specifically made criminals out of Americans for making a film critical of a sitting US Senator.

    The "Citizens United" does not damage democracy in any way whatsoever. What it does is help the democratic process by allowing American individuals to criticize those in power and speak out on issues.

    Why do you oppose the decision? Ducky? Are you some sort of fascist who favors the crackdown on political expression that happens without it?

    Probably. I have YET to argue about "Citizens United" with anyone on the left who believes that we need to have a First Amendment to protect the right of the people to speak truth to power.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech." —Justice Kennedy

    It does not surprise me to learn that Ducky opposes free speech for anyone, excepting progressive organizations, of course.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Our federal government has been in the control of career bureaucrats for years. From a recent WaPo article : "One study found that in 2007, Congress enacted 138 public laws, while federal agencies finalized 2,926 rules, including 61 major regulations."

    ReplyDelete
  8. Mark Levin should be officially declared A National Treasure. I listened to all nine-and-a-half minutes of his video, and, while I may have a few reservations about the timbre of his voice and manner of delivery, the CONTENT of his thought is exactly in accord with my own.

    I've seen it for myself for the past forty-odd years, of course. My FATHER saw it coming as far back as the NINETEEN-THIRTIES. But what good has "being right" done for any of us?

    "THEY" have the POWER, because "they" were successful in DUPING a substantial majority into accepting their faux-Utopian ideology.

    The noose was tossed by the earliest "progressives" and has surrounded us for one-hundred years -- a full-century. The noose has been tightening ever since, but at such a slow pace that The Folk -- even TODAY -- have NO IDEA that they are being STRANGLED to DEATH, even though ALL of us -- without exception -- are feeling the early symptoms of SUFFOCATION.

    Why else would ill temper be so prevalent and patience in such short supply?

    We KNOW something is terribly WRONG, but most of us do not know HOW or WHOM to FIGHT, so instead we turn on EACH OTHER.

    Remember The Serpent in Genesis? "The Serpent was the most subtile of all the beasts."

    Despite all our striving, our vast amounts of acquired knowledge, all our sacrifices, all our sophistication, all our amazing achievements, NOTHING has CHANGED since The Beginning.

    ReplyDelete
  9. @ FT ...

    You are 100% correct, and it was foretold to us by George Orwell. But let us not pretend "they" duped us. We have duped ourselves; politicians have only given us what we wanted most: free stuff.

    Ah ... but it wasn't really free, was it? We had to first give up our willingness to live as free men.

    ReplyDelete
  10. FT,
    Thank you for listening to the audio. I know that Mr. Levin's voice and accent are grating -- and those matters can irritate those of us who love "the king's English."

    Of course, what REALLY matters is the content, isn't it?

    I hope that others will take the time to listen to this particular bit of audio from Mr. Levin. Important!

    ReplyDelete
  11. Yeah Sam,

    Anyone who thinks that goods and/ or services of worth are FREE is either: ignorant, crazy or a "freeloader"! I think that all of these attributes were well represented at the polls, last November!

    ReplyDelete
  12. Mustang said: "It does not surprise me to learn that Ducky opposes free speech for anyone, excepting progressive organizations, of course."

    Those who hate the "Citizens United" decision, like Ducky, believe that there is an exemption in the First Amendment that allows those in power to eliminate the free speech rights of individuals if these individuals are associated with organizations that the government arbitrarily deems are "bad". Which in practice means that the politicians who run the country deem as "bad" organizations that speak out against the politician's abuse of power.

    "Citizens United" is a no brainer. For this decision? Civil libertarians. Against it? Fascists and others who hate the idea of individual liberties and human rights.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Also, I have yet to see a coherent, decent point to be made by any leftist who opposes "Citizens United". Without fail, the reasons to want to overturn it are based on a combination of ignorance and contempt of civil liberties.

    One person has argued passionately over and over that First Amendment freedoms only apply to a narrow-defined "press" consisting only of government approved newspapers, and under the Constitution, this means that the government is free to punish any citizen any way it wants to for saying the wrong thing... if that citizen is not within the list of government-approved newspapers.

    ReplyDelete

  14. 'Just sayin says
    May 28, 2013 at 7:12 am (Edit)
    "You are as full of shit as Shaw is"

    IP Address of this person is 70.192.79.194 and it's one of you people.

    Always On Watch is becoming known in ever widening circles as a hate blog.

    What do you hope to accomplish by this? Do you think your approach to blogging will make you lots of money doing ads if you can only get enough viewers? People are LEAVING YOU!

    All you know is attack, attack, attack. You have a little fan club of haters, but you know what? That just puts you on a par with any bunch of Aryan skinhead rednecks.

    This used to be a really decent blog. Nothing lasts forever, though.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Youknow/Newsbleat,

    So say you. To people who don't give a shit what you think.

    ReplyDelete
  16. 70.192.79.194

    Is from a wireless datanet. You know BS, like a McDonalds or some other cheesy restaurant, like the one you're commenting from to get around being banned.

    Of course you'll have to go back to see this comment because you're banned from posting from under your bridge with the other trolls. I could ban this IP but I like the idea of you spending money to comment and eating greasy food while you do.

    ReplyDelete
  17. @Warren:
    Transmitting pornography to children is against the law. Black Sheep knows that AOW’s students visit this site. So he has transmitted his filth to a site he knows is frequented by adolescents. If you provide this evidence to the Riverside CA Sheriff’s Department, Black Sheep may end up in prison, where he belongs.

    ReplyDelete
  18. As for Martin Niemöller's original verse, if they came for the socialists and no-one else, that'd be 100 million murders and even more rapes, thefts, and other acts of violence that would have been prevented.

    ReplyDelete
  19. This blog is a good one! Its original, thanks for the info! Is there a way I can tell my people about this post.

    ReplyDelete

We welcome civil dialogue at Always on Watch. Comments that include any of the following are subject to deletion:
1. Any use of profanity or abusive language
2. Off topic comments and spam
3. Use of personal invective