CANDIDATE OBAMA (2008) DEMANDS THE DOJ/IRS PROSECUTE HIS POLITICAL OPPONETS

[Whirlaway]

Written in 2008 by John Hinderaker at Powerlineblog.com. Regarding the Obama campaign’s demands for a DoJ investigation of the 527 group ads criticizing his long association with Ayers, John Hinderaker at Powerline asks:

Obama’s suggestion that it is illegal for a 501(c)(4) entity to fund issue ads that are negative toward him appears ludicrous. Here’s the real question, though: if Obama is elected President, will he appoint an Attorney General who will carry out politically-motivated prosecutions like the one he is now demanding? I suppose we can’t know for sure, but why wouldn’t he? If he demands criminal prosecution of free speech that opposes his political interests when he’s a candidate, why wouldn’t he order it as President?

We noted here efforts by Barack Obama’s campaign to shut down his critics’ free speech. In particular, Obama obviously doesn’t want the public to know about his long-term, cozy relationship with proud-to-be-a-terrorist Bill Ayers. Now, Obama himself has upped the ante by demanding that the conservative who funded the Ayers ad be criminally prosecuted:

Obama general counsel Bob Bauer today (2008) sent a second, sharper letter to the Justice Department, directly attacking the Dallas billionaire funding a harsh attack ad, Harold Simmons.

“We reiterate our request that the Department of Justice fulfill its commitment to take prompt action to investigate and to prosecute the American issues Project, and we further request that the Department of Justice investigate and prosecute Howard [sic] Simmons for a knowing and willful violation of the individual aggregate contribution limits,” he wrote.

Obama’s suggestion that it is illegal for a 501(c)(4) entity to fund issue ads that are negative toward him appears ludicrous. Here’s the real question, though: if Obama is elected President, will he appoint an Attorney General who will carry out politically-motivated prosecutions like the one he is now demanding? I suppose we can’t know for sure, but why wouldn’t he? If he demands criminal prosecution of free speech that opposes his political interests when he’s a candidate, why wouldn’t he order it as President?

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive...-a-prophet.php

[Whirlaway]

You think hardcore Democrat Lois Lerner wasn't following marching orders when she took over the IRS and proceeded to target political enemies (at the urging of Team Obama)?

Think again.

[JD Barleycorn]

Kind of like reading "Mein Kampf" isn't it.

[Guest123018-4]

The IRS is corrupt as is all of the Obama administration

[Munchmasterman]

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Written in 2008 by John Hinderaker at Powerlineblog.com. Regarding the Obama campaign’s demands for a DoJ investigation of the 527 group ads criticizing his long association with Ayers, John Hinderaker at Powerline asks:

Obama’s suggestion that it is illegal for a 501(c)(4) entity to fund issue ads that are negative toward him appears ludicrous. Here’s the real question, though: if Obama is elected President, will he appoint an Attorney General who will carry out politically-motivated prosecutions like the one he is now demanding? I suppose we can’t know for sure, but why wouldn’t he? If he demands criminal prosecution of free speech that opposes his political interests when he’s a candidate, why wouldn’t he order it as President?

We noted here efforts by Barack Obama’s campaign to shut down his critics’ free speech. In particular, Obama obviously doesn’t want the public to know about his long-term, cozy relationship with proud-to-be-a-terrorist Bill Ayers. Now, Obama himself has upped the ante by demanding that the conservative who funded the Ayers ad be criminally prosecuted:

Obama general counsel Bob Bauer today (2008) sent a second, sharper letter to the Justice Department, directly attacking the Dallas billionaire funding a harsh attack ad, Harold Simmons.

“We reiterate our request that the Department of Justice fulfill its commitment to take prompt action to investigate and to prosecute the American issues Project, and we further request that the Department of Justice investigate and prosecute Howard [sic] Simmons for a knowing and willful violation of the individual aggregate contribution limits,” he wrote.

Obama’s suggestion that it is illegal for a 501(c)(4) entity to fund issue ads that are negative toward him appears ludicrous. Here’s the real question, though: if Obama is elected President, will he appoint an Attorney General who will carry out politically-motivated prosecutions like the one he is now demanding? I suppose we can’t know for sure, but why wouldn’t he? If he demands criminal prosecution of free speech that opposes his political interests when he’s a candidate, why wouldn’t he order it as President?

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive...-a-prophet.php

Nice try. Your kind of guy.
From the Dallas Morning News;

The project is "a knowing and willful attempt to violate the strictures of federal election law," Obama general counsel Bob Bauer wrote to Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Keeney last week in a letter provided to Politico. Bauer argued that by advocating Obama's defeat, the ad should be subject to the contribution limits of federal campaign law, not the anything-goes regime of issue advocacy.

Here is the guy that's your hero. A real scumbag.

Harold Simmons, the billionaire funding the Obama-Ayers ad, forged his daughters' signatures to make political donations they didn't agree with (including to Jesse Helms), tried to dodge $80 million in taxes, added lead to paint his company distributed, and expanded the dumping of dangerous nuclear waste for profit.

Simmons admitted to forging his daughters' signatures to contribute above the maximum amount to the campaign of Senator Jesse Helms:

"I thought it was right to sign the names because it would help the Helms campaign. It was a mistake, wrong and bad judgement," he testified.

Simmons doesn't just try to cheat his daughters, he frequently attempts and often succeeds at extorting the American taxpayer. Texans for Public Justice outlined how Simmons makes a profit:

With 2000 sales exceeding $1 billion, Simmons' empire depends on friendly government policies. Taxpayers subsidize Simmons' sugar prices, bankroll military purchases of his aerospace metals and ultimately pay for the limits that government officials place on his tax and pollution liabilities. Then-President Clinton used the line-item veto to narrowly avert a 1997 loophole for Simmons to dodge $80 million in taxes.

http://www.truth-out.org/buzzflash/c...ad-contributor

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

Nice try. Your kind of guy.
From the Dallas Morning News;

The project is "a knowing and willful attempt to violate the strictures of federal election law," Obama general counsel Bob Bauer wrote to Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Keeney last week in a letter provided to Politico. Bauer argued that by advocating Obama's defeat, the ad should be subject to the contribution limits of federal campaign law, not the anything-goes regime of issue advocacy.

Here is the guy that's your hero. A real scumbag.

Harold Simmons, the billionaire funding the Obama-Ayers ad, forged his daughters' signatures to make political donations they didn't agree with (including to Jesse Helms), tried to dodge $80 million in taxes, added lead to paint his company distributed, and expanded the dumping of dangerous nuclear waste for profit.

Simmons admitted to forging his daughters' signatures to contribute above the maximum amount to the campaign of Senator Jesse Helms:

"I thought it was right to sign the names because it would help the Helms campaign. It was a mistake, wrong and bad judgement," he testified.

Simmons doesn't just try to cheat his daughters, he frequently attempts and often succeeds at extorting the American taxpayer. Texans for Public Justice outlined how Simmons makes a profit:

With 2000 sales exceeding $1 billion, Simmons' empire depends on friendly government policies. Taxpayers subsidize Simmons' sugar prices, bankroll military purchases of his aerospace metals and ultimately pay for the limits that government officials place on his tax and pollution liabilities. Then-President Clinton used the line-item veto to narrowly avert a 1997 loophole for Simmons to dodge $80 million in taxes.

http://www.truth-out.org/buzzflash/c...ad-contributor

Nice rebuttal....you got to Paul Harvey these Tea Wipes on damn near every post of theirs. They get their e-mails and Parrot on!

At the end of the day these 501(c)(4) should not be tax exempt.

[Whirlaway]

Jessie Helms ............HAHAHAHA......

What year was that ?

BTW, you don't dispute that Obama wanted the DOJ to target American Issues Project.........


Obama sent a strong signal to all his soldiers to go after the Tea Party...........it was wrong when Nixon "endeavored" to do so and wrong when Team Obama ACTUALLY used the IRS/DOJ to target political opponents !

[nevergaveitathought]

Originally Posted by WTF

Nice rebuttal....you got to Paul Harvey these Tea Wipes on damn near every post of theirs. They get their e-mails and Parrot on!

At the end of the day these 501(c)(4) should not be tax exempt.

its not a rebuttal of anything in the article

its an attack on simmons. doesn't address Obama and his minions at all

btw the attack is quite humorous

he gets special treatment because there is a limit to liabilities under the law?
doesn't say he pollutes, just says he gets something because there is a law limiting liability which can apply to anyone. and Clinton vetoed something in a bill? and the taxpayers bankroll the military??? well yes we do. it seems like so much crap, sort of like the war on women.

and to address your idiotic statement regarding 501 (c) (4)'s...they aren't tax exempt in the normal sense.

Under our 72000 page or longer tax system an entity is either taxable or tax exempt.

its really an issue of government control of everything we do. just because like minded people band together and pool their own money they are forced to apply for applicable treatment under the law.

there is no tax deduction for pooled money placed in a 501(c)(4) and that money has already been taxed. if we didn't try to control people placing already taxed money in a common bank account there would be no need to apply for permission to do so.

the law basically says, after making you go through hoops, oh yeah, that's not a business so we wont try to tax you since you aren't earning any money and all you did was pool some already taxed bucks in an account for a purpose but you have to file this return so we can keep an eye on you.

so for you to say it shouldn't be tax exempt, that's like saying we should keep taxing all your money forever as long as you can rub two pennies together. THEY ARENT EARNING ANYTHING, PEOPLE MERELY CONTRIBUTE MONEY TO A COMMON ACCOUNT AND DONT GET ANY TAX DEDUCTION EITHER

if the government would get out of it, there would be no application under the tax law and no one gets any tax break ever anyway, either way, they are just spending their own money.

[Munchmasterman]

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Jessie Helms ............HAHAHAHA......

What year was that ?

BTW, you don't dispute that Obama wanted the DOJ to target American Issues Project........They questioned the legality of the money. Not that!.


Obama sent a strong signal to all his soldiers to go after the Tea Party...........it was wrong when Nixon "endeavored" to do so and wrong when Team Obama ACTUALLY used the IRS/DOJ to target political opponents !

For election law violations, not content. The Jesse Helms thing shows how long your tax dodging nuclear waste spreader has been making illegal donations. Since the repubs were in power, they sent the DOJ a request to look into the legality of your hero's contributions.
Big fucking deal

[Munchmasterman]

Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

its not a rebuttal of anything in the article

its an attack on simmons. doesn't address Obama and his minions at all

btw the attack is quite humorous

he gets special treatment because there is a limit to liabilities under the law?
doesn't say he pollutes, just says he gets something because there is a law limiting liability which can apply to anyone. and Clinton vetoed something in a bill? and the taxpayers bankroll the military??? well yes we do. it seems like s so much crap, sort of like the war on women.

The article is about a person with a history of illegal contributions. The letter from Obama's attorney was a request to look into the legality of the ad type and amount spent on it. The article comes from the Dallas Morning News. The op comes from op/ed.
What did Obama and his minions do that was questionable in 2008?
Nothing in this thread.
How humorous you'll grab any straw

[Yssup Rider]

another day, another new chorus of whining by the America haters. Why don't you traitors just go to Teheran and burn American flags with the rest of your ilk?

[WTF]

Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

there is no tax deduction for pooled money placed in a 501(c)(4) and that money has already been taxed. if we didn't try to control people placing already taxed money in a common bank account there would be no need to apply for permission to do so.

.

You dumb fuck. All money at one point has been taxed. I buy a car with taxed money and I pay a sales tax. I do not get to say," hey government , I already paid taxes on my wages....I should not pay sales tax."

There are so may other fallacies to your post but so little time on my part.

Stick to fracking. Frack off on this subject

If you think these Tea Nuts are social welfare organizations you are a fucking idiot. Do you even understand WTF income is. Do you understand that the Tea Party is not nonpartisan? Do you even know wtf nonpartisan is?



http://bolderadvocacy.org/blog/expla...tical-activity

What the Law Says 501(c)(4)s May Do
A 501(c)(4) social welfare organization generally pays no taxes on its income, but may not offer its donors a tax deduction. Social welfare organizations may conduct unlimited lobbying and may engage in partisan political campaign work, but only as a secondary activity.
If an organization’s primary purpose or activity is partisan political activity, the organization does not qualify as a 501(c)(4). Partisan activity is defined as anything that tends to show support or opposition to a candidate or group of candidates.

Voter education and engagement activity– including candidate questionnaires and debates, issue education projects, get-out-the-vote programs, and voter registration, as long as they are conducted in a nonpartisan manner (that is, if they do not support or oppose candidates or political parties).

• Also permissible for 501(c)(4)s are activities such as workshops, publications, and seminars to encourage greater participation in government and politics or better campaign practices, as long as they do not support or oppose a candidate or political party.

[JD Barleycorn]

Just like a good little Nazi Munchie.

[nevergaveitathought]

Originally Posted by WTF

You dumb fuck. All money at one point has been taxed. I buy a car with taxed money and I pay a sales tax. I do not get to say," hey government , I already paid taxes on my wages....I should not pay sales tax."

There are so may other fallacies to your post but so little time on my part.

Stick to fracking. Frack off on this subject

If you think these Tea Nuts are social welfare organizations you are a fucking idiot. Do you even understand WTF income is. Do you understand that the Tea Party is not nonpartisan? Do you even know wtf nonpartisan is?



http://bolderadvocacy.org/blog/expla...tical-activity

What the Law Says 501(c)(4)s May Do
A 501(c)(4) social welfare organization generally pays no taxes on its income, but may not offer its donors a tax deduction. Social welfare organizations may conduct unlimited lobbying and may engage in partisan political campaign work, but only as a secondary activity.
If an organization’s primary purpose or activity is partisan political activity, the organization does not qualify as a 501(c)(4). Partisan activity is defined as anything that tends to show support or opposition to a candidate or group of candidates.

Voter education and engagement activity– including candidate questionnaires and debates, issue education projects, get-out-the-vote programs, and voter registration, as long as they are conducted in a nonpartisan manner (that is, if they do not support or oppose candidates or political parties).

• Also permissible for 501(c)(4)s are activities such as workshops, publications, and seminars to encourage greater participation in government and politics or better campaign practices, as long as they do not support or oppose a candidate or political party.

they don't have income you asshole..the income this article talks about is "member contributions"

members don't get tax deductions for the contribution and the entity doesn't have "taxable income" for those same contributions

if an entity has UBTI.."unrelated business taxable income"..its taxed on that

its all about control and the tax system we have..its not about INCOME..there isnt any

it takes two things to have a semblance of understanding..ability to read..and comprehension... you lack both

[JD Barleycorn]

So WTF thinks that because someone is a Tea Party member then they get what they deserve? Another Nazi in our midst. Just replace Tea Party with the word "Jew" and see how you sound WTF. I figure we might as well start calling you little fascists out for what you are.