Surely the root cause of the problem is that the IRS has the authority to make such decisions to begin with. I don't care how objective someone is trying to be or claims to be. When a government agency has the power to cost you serious money based on their opinions of the purpose of your organization, it is difficult to imagine how there could NOT be discrimination and corruption.

Under Obamacare, a visit to the doctor will effectively be a visit to a government agency, where treatment will combine the smooth efficiency of the motor vehicle bureau with the compassion of the IRS.

I recall when they were first pushing Obamacare, a frequent slogan was that once Obamacare was in place, the first question the doctor asked you would no longer be "Do you have insurance?" or "How do you intend to pay for this?" And I'm sure that that is true. Once Obamacare is fully in place, when you visit a doctor the first question he will ask will be something more like, "Have you completed forms 897B and TX-321 pages 1 through 20 and 25 through 49?"

Well, to be fair here, somebody does lose: the owners and employers of the companies that have to face subsidized competition. And the political reality is: If one person who owns a business stands to lose his $1 million per year income, and 10 million consumers each stand to gain $1 each, the net benefit to the economy is $9 million. But that one rich person has a huge incentive to lobby his Congressman and yell and scream and make campaign contributions to protect his business. Most of the 10 million consumers probably don't even know what's happening, and if they did, if they wrote a letter to their Congressman about it the cost of the stamp alone would blow half their potential financial gain.

I asked a woman what time it was and she said "2 o'clock". I think she said that in a very sexual manner. It was clearly sexual harassment. I'm going to file a complaint.

I have a simple solution to the accusations of racism against the Tea Party: I think no one should be allowed to join the Tea Party until he frees all his slaves. Also, all Tea Party groups should sign a contract vowing to promptly expel any member who is convicted of participating in a lynching. Once the Tea Party demonstrates its willingness to take these radical steps, I think it would be fair to demand that there be no further accusations of racism.

When I lived in Xenia Ohio, official school policy was that if two students were involved in a fight, regardless of who started it, BOTH students would be suspended. Even if the victim did not fight back at all but simply stood there and let himself be beaten up, he would be suspended for "being involved" in a fight. This is called "zero tolerance", which has always been shorthand for "zero tolerance for any exercise of intelligence".

If the IRS was doing "further review" on ALL political groups, whether right or left, you could make a case that this was appropriate. Like if they reviewed all groups with "tea party" in the name, and also all groups with "progressive" or "occupy" in the name, then maybe it would have been truly non-partisan. But there is no indication that they scrutinized left-wing groups, only right-wing groups.

Well, surely the lives of a mere four people are not important compared to America's vital need to get Obama re-elected.

Seems to me that the Republican Party's problem is that they are absolutely convinced that the country is overwhelmingly liberal, and so the way to get elected is to downplay their commitment to freedom and morality. It seems like in every political campaign, the D candidate will say something like, "If my opponent is elected, he will cut funding for welfare and repeal vital government regulations!" And then, 99% of the time, the R candidate will reply, "You're quoting me out of context! I never said that I was for lower government spending or more freedom! I'm against those things as much as you are!"