Among the topics that Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump is expected to raise when he meets with evangelical Christian pastors today in Orlando: the “Johnson Amendment.” Trump has repeatedly vowed to “get rid of” the tax rule that Lyndon B. Johnson introduced in 1954 while running for reelection as a Texas senator -- a provision that some religious groups and churches consider an infringement on their freedom of speech. “I am going to work very hard to repeal that language and to protect free speech for all Americans,” Trump said during his speech at the National Republican Convention in Cleveland last month as the crowd erupted in applause. The rule bars tax-exempt charitable groups, which the Internal Revenue Service calls “section 501(c)(3) organizations,” from endorsing candidates and getting involved in political campaigns. Because churches fall under section 501(c)(3) of the tax code, the ban applies to them as well. “Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office,” according to the tax code. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.4536df36d3f8 Church and the state about to be intwined.
Ask the leftist Cameron who was the one that put them in that group. EDIT: And how can you say the majority of people in the USA abhor everything that Trump stands for? Are you not one of those that has decided to include non voters when talking of majorities and mandates in this country? How do you know what those that were eligible yet couldn't be bothered think? Ides, What is your viewpoint on what happened regarding the planned (but then cancelled due to "protestors") Milo Yiannopolous @ University of California last night?
Taken from The Independant: Donald Trump’s administration is reportedly pushing to erase neo-Nazis and white supremacists from the US government’s counter-extremism programme by moving it to focus exclusively on Islamist terrorism. American officials briefed on the proposed changes told Reuters the Countering Violent Extremism (DVE) initiative could be renamed to “Countering Radical Islamic Extremism”. The reclassification would remove its work combating far-right attacks and mass shootings, such as the massacre of black churchgoers in Charleston, which are rarely classified as terrorism by American authorities. Hope this isn't true. But Bannon is floating around like a piece of ****.
Well wait a second. Let's be clear here. 501(c)(3) encompasses a huge number of organizations. Including amateur sporting organizations, charitable foundations of all kinds, scientific organizations, etc. It's basically the generic form for any non-profit. So IF you were to allow 501(c)(3) groups to lobby, then you really have to let churches lobby. Otherwise you'd be discriminating against religious groups by making them the only non-profits who couldn't. That said, it's pretty crazy to allow 501(c)(3) groups to lobby, since there is already a provision for non-profit political lobbying groups, which is 501(c)(4). And those are the PACS that everyone hates and claims they buy the elections. So with Trump saying he wants legislation to repeal Citizens v United (the case that created 501(c)(4)'s in the form they have today), and that he wants to "drain the swamp" this definitely seems very hypocritical. And of course we know that there are many churches sitting on piles and piles of cash so the ultimate impact of this would be that churches would have a lot more say. So, it's lame in that sense.
Jeremy Corbyn has gaffed at the launch of LGBT History Month, telling the audience that he stands with people who “chose to be gay” or “chose to be lesbian”. A rhetorical faux pas as right on Jez should know: https://order-order.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/v8mKBAV9nQyDke-.mp4?_=1 And in other news, Diane Abbott was too sick to vote for article 50 to be invoked (something she had been touring the studios to defend the 3 line whip all week) yet was out on the lash with Thornberry and Shami the night before, managed to speak in committee 2 hours prior to the vote and was tweeting away during the vote.
Not too many ****s given, I wouldn't have thought Imps, but well done to whoever trawled that little gem from the bottom of the internet in order to make Jezza look bad. Not sure he really needs any help in that regard tbh.
I had stated that Labour would hold on to the Stoke seat (formerly held by Tristram Hunt) with a much reduced margin (7,000 reduced to 2,000 or so) with the Tories and UKIP splitting the gain from Labour however, it is looking increasingly likely that UKIP and Paul Nuttall are going to win the seat!! Yesterday's poll had UKIP on 39% and Labour on 33%. Even with Michael Crick chasing the "home address" issue I would expect that should Nuttall win it will be a slap on the wrist and at worst the election will be run again and the result could be greater because of course it will play into the "trying any tactics to stop UKIP" argument. Surprises me because I didn't think UKIP would be able to pull all the votes from Labour without the Tories gaining any.
Granted but: Back in June, Leave.EU published an poll predicting the results of the EU referendum which, although it included no convincing methodology, accurately predicted a 48 result. Some have suggested that this lends credence to the ‘data’ published today.
It would have been better to hear what he said, and then at the end sit in complete silence. That is the biggest killer of all. Just ask So Stoke is turning into a "Chav" town like Portsmouth, Essex and Kent ... all places with vast numbers of Chavs!!
Damn you avoided my Ken Clarke trap Looks like it. This is from Labour leave's polling: 81% of voters who indicated they are going to vote for UKIP in the upcoming by-election have previously voted for Labour. That is a worry for Labour although it doesn't tell you how many that 81% represents. They could have asked 100 chavs outside the job centre and 19% said they didn't vote before. I doubt it though on their own site. Labour have put up someone who is pretty vocal about his disgust at Brexit though which is bewildering unless they just don;t care anymore. And the Tories are devoting their resources to Copeland because they are much closer there and can smell blood.
I alluded to that earlier. It won't affect this election though. The result will stand pending a review. They will either decide to slap his wrist (most likely option) or re-run the election which he'll win more handsomely than the first because they'll play the "establishment trying every trick to stop us" line. Expect a narrative of the "Tories overspent in Newark and Thanet but nothing was done yet they do us within days for a technicality." something like that. Has Farage gone into the fashion business ad started a "country gent" clothes range?
Paul Nuttall is from Merseyside. He would not stand a dog's chance of getting elected in any Liverpool seat so he has had to find a possible winnable seat in Stoke. Josiah Wedgewood must be roasting in his kiln at the very thought of him getting elected.
