My comments follow this brief article: THE POWER TO DESTROY Faith group to IRS: Don't tread on us! John Kerry case reveals loophole for feds to quash political speech Posted: October 22, 2011 11:00 pm Eastern By Drew Zahn A religious group is charging the Internal Revenue Service with using a legal loophole to first tax nonprofits' free speech, then run away with impunity when challenged in court. The nonprofit Catholic Answers tasted this tactic firsthand in 2008, when its president, Karl Keating, posted a discussion on the organization's website arguing that, according to church rules, Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., should not be allowed to receive communion in the Catholic Church because of his support for legalized abortion. The IRS then levied an excise tax on Catholic Answers for engaging in alleged "political speech" against then-presidential primary candidate Kerry, a tax Catholic Answers paid. But when challenged in court, the IRS simply refunded the tax, while refusing to change its ruling that Catholic Answers' speech was taxable political intervention in an election. Lower courts then ruled Catholic Answers had no course of action against the IRS. But Catholic Answers, together with the James Madison Center for Free Speech, are now asking the Supreme Court to step in, claiming this "tax-and-run" strategy allows the IRS to arbitrarily tax churches, charities and religious activists into silence, or dodge the consequences if the nonprofits fight back. "Not only did the federal courts in this case misapply Supreme Court law, they have allowed the IRS to engage in trickery by penalizing nonprofits who exercise their right to speak, only to return the money at the last possible second," explained James Bopp Jr., general counsel for the James Madison Center and co-chairman of the Election Law Subcommittee of the Federalist Society. "So long as the IRS is allowed to do this, nonprofits like Catholic Answers will be deterred from speaking about individuals who are political candidates in any context for fear they'll be investigated and taxed. Nothing prevents the IRS from doing this again. And these groups now have no judicial remedy." The IRS initially conducted an extensive investigation and concluded that, since nonprofits should not engage in political speech, Catholic Answers should be penalized for making a "political expenditure" during an election. But Catholic Answers argued its speech was not about the election of a candidate but about a theological issue surrounding a public official. When challenged, the IRS returned the money on the grounds that Catholic Answers didn't intentionally try to engage in political speech, but the federal agency refused to change its decision. Catholic Answers, in turn, asked the federal courts to review that decision, knowing that without a change in the IRS's position on its speech, it couldn't make comments on figures like Kerry again without risking another investigation and tax penalty. Yet both the California federal district court and the federal appeals court held that because Catholic Answers got its money back, the issue was resolved, and there was nothing for the courts to do. "This allows the IRS to harass and penalize nonprofits who discuss public officials who are also running for office while leaving those nonprofits without any recourse," the James Madison Center said in a statement. "The IRS can simply return the money at the last minute and never be sued for taxing protected speech that shouldn't be taxed in the first place." A copy of the petition to the Supreme Court can be seen on the James Madison Center website. http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=358653 To begin, defense attorneys do not let their clients take the stand; so juries never hear defendants say I stand on my constitutional Right to remain silent. Or simply Im taking the Fifth. I believe that most Americans understand that remaining silent in criminal cases does not make the defendant guilty. On the other hand, witnesses pleading the Fifth when testifying at a congressional hearing do not automatically receive absolution. My guess is that most Americans think those witnesses are probably guilty of something. Whether or not Congress should subpoena private citizens to testify before a congressional committee is another topic. To me, congressional hearings often invade the judiciarys territory. To be fair, legislating from the bench occupies a piece of Congress domain. To the best of my knowledge, neither branch objects to blurring separation of powers. The case cited in Drew Zahns piece amounts to the government taking the Fifth after the IRS initially testified. In short, Anything you say may be used against you in a court of law. does not apply to the IRS. This excerpt raises an important question: The IRS then levied an excise tax on Catholic Answers for engaging in alleged "political speech" against then-presidential primary candidate Kerry, a tax Catholic Answers paid. Question: Why did the IRS tax Catholic Answers instead of rescinding its tax exempt status? Youll find the answer by looking at clerics of every stripe who use their pulpits to preach politics. Examples: 1. Jeremiah Wright. 2. Muslim clerics who must preach theocracy in order to ensure obedience to sharia law. The very definition of theocracy should be all the IRS needs to take tax exempt status away from every Islamic entity: theocracy (noun) 1. A government ruled by or subject to religious authority. 2. A state so governed. Finally, the MSM and everybody in government abhors private sector free speech. The government hates it because free speech challenges its authority. The media hates free speech because it is competition. The media had no serious competition before the Internet. To paraphrase Hamlet: Prior to the Internet free speech was more honored in the breach than observed. Put it this way, if God suddenly gave everybody free candy confectioners would go bonkers. Its been very traumatic for the folks in the MSM suddenly being told that free speech is like free candy. The MSM always got paid for selling speech because free speech meant institutional free speech. The number of people who heard (read) the speaker fell for the illusion that free speech was enjoyed by listeners as well as speakers. Aside from the obvious, the first duty of every business is to eliminate the competition. Manufacturing and marketing a better product is the ideal; manipulating legislation, legislators, and the courts is the reality.
To botenth: I cant determine what it is youre objecting to? Is it the facts published in the article by Drew Zahn? or is it that the article made it onto the Internet? Heaven forbid you should object to my thread!
The best thing about the Information Age is that there is limitless information at our fingertips. The worst thing about the Information Age is that much of it is wrong, leading to chronically and sometimes even laughably or dangerously misinformed people, like in the OP, or others here. Since memorizing facts is obsolete in a world where any fact is available at your fingertips, our schools need to change gears and focus on teaching critical thinking skills. It's clear they are severely lacking in most adults.
