The Thursday wrap
Exposing the outright lie that the IRS was not targeting conservative groups is ProPublica, the “progressive” mouthpiece, which says the IRS gave it nine confidential applications for tax-exempt status from conservative groups. Not only was the IRS operating a taxpayer-funded organized conservative harassment campaign, it was operating a taxpayer-funded conservative smear campaign. ... The New York Times played the first-day story of the IRS harassing conservative groups at the bottom of page 10. Had the IRS done the same to liberal groups, The Times would have put out an extra edition. ... Lois Lerner, the head of the IRS division that illegally targeted conservatives, will be given a special award during Saturday's commencement at the Western New England University School of Law for having “distinguished” herself “in a particular field or in service to an important cause that has benefited society ... .” Here's to somebody in that crowd expressing vocal displeasure during the presentation. ... CNSNews.com reminds that at the same time President Obama's Justice Department was secretly pillaging through The Associated Press' telephone records in April and May of last year, the president released a statement heralding “World Press Freedom Day.” That was on May 3, 2012. Odd, but CNSNews reports that while Mr. Obama released similar statements in 2009, 2010 and 2011 as well, none has been released thus far this year. We report, you deride.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- A manger’s light
- The regulatory state: EPA picks a fight
- Ford City’s solution: Good side to cop cuts
- Holiday Gift Club: The spirit of the season
- Union ‘fairness’: The dues racket