http://www.talkdelaware.com/ Talk about politics here. en Sun, 26 May 2013 07:02:42 GMT vBulletin 60 http://www.talkdelaware.com/images/misc/rss.png http://www.talkdelaware.com/ http://www.talkdelaware.com/showthread.php?21875-Deny-decry&goto=newpost Wed, 22 May 2013 21:46:28 GMT ]]> Alphie http://www.talkdelaware.com/showthread.php?21875-Deny-decry http://www.talkdelaware.com/showthread.php?21868-The-IRS-A-quest-for-a-new-national-symbol!&goto=newpost Tue, 21 May 2013 00:27:57 GMT *ALL* organizations that apply for 501C*4* tax exempt status must fill out the same form; political party affiliations are immaterial. Click here... ALL organizations that apply for 501C4 tax exempt status must fill out the same form; political party affiliations are immaterial. Click here to view the form. I’m not defending the IRS. At the least, a decision to do specific politically-motivated scrutiny was STUPID; at its worst it was a blatant stab at a low-rent, pathetic, and amateurish attempt at a clandestine nullification of 1^st Amendment rights.

And even worse, the attempt—or whatever—was one that any 2-digit IQ investigative reporter could disrupt with the flick of an ethical light switch, sending the political cockroaches scurrying back behind the baseboards.

While the IRS can issue all the apologies and denials it wants, the fact that its agents used specific search words primarily associated with Conservative groups, belies the genuineness of both: its apologies and denials.

However, I see the problem as an offshoot of the 501C4 exempt status itself. Its prime purpose is to award tax exempt status to organizations that purport, as their prime purpose, the lofty task of working for the social welfare of the country.

As of the beginning of May 2013, the IRS listed on its website 827,693 such organizations (501C4); they represent BOTH sides of the political aisle. And depending on which population count we use, it implies a 501C4 tax exempt organization for every 350 people in the country.

Yet we’re STILL up to our ears—virtually awash—in social problems. It makes me wonder just what it is that these organizations are doing for the social welfare. It definitely fails the “smell test.”

On the other hand, the IRS has granted 501C3 tax exempt status—and continues doing so—to CHARITABLE organizations, and understand that I emphasize the term, “charitable” and not religious. While all IRS-recognized religious organizations enjoy this status, so do thousands of organizations that are NOT affiliated with any religion.

The primary difference between the two exemptions is that a 501C4 promotes the SOCIAL good as its prime directive, while a 501C3 promotes CHARITY as its prime directive. Oh, and the 501C3 is a lot easier to fill out.

A 501C3 status prohibits organizations from becoming POLITICAL; it does not prohibit them from promoting the SOCIAL good. Its application form is much shorter and far less intrusive than that of the 501C4 application form.

Organizations holding a 501C3 status are perfectly free to support myriad legislation, establish discussion forums, employ lobbyists to represent their interests, educate the masses via anti-tax forums, and to distribute fliers to warn people about government waste and rip-offs. However, they’re not permitted to contribute money to political causes in the names of their organizations; nor are they permitted to issue mandates as to which specific candidates to support, etc.

Not ALL 501C4 organizations are clandestine political campaigns posing as Mother Teresa types, but many of them are. And they spare no expense to obtain such a status, even though a 501C3 status is much easier to obtain, costs far less money to obtain, and grants virtually the same rights in support of the SOCIAL good. So why not just apply for a 501C3 status?

Could it be that the primary reasons for the existence of most of the 501C4 organizations are to funnel unlimited money to political campaigns without a need to adhere to those pesky disclosure laws, totally avoid tax liabilities related to the generation of operational funds, generate round-the-clock political robo-calls (absolutely forbidden to 501C3 organizations), and pay exorbitant amounts of money to numb us senseless via limitless 30-second political ads—not to mention that they’re mostly a collection of blatant lies?

If the aggregation of United States Congress is truly interested in returning the nation to any semblance of useful political discourse—and some of the ARE—they’d do something about the way a 501C4 tax exempt status is granted.

Any suggestions beyond the RIGHT blaming EVERYTHING on Obama and those baby-killing LIBERALS and the LEFT blaming EVERYTING on those unconscionable social programs-killing CONSERVATIVES in conjunction with a mysterious spell generated by some of the idiots in the Tea Party?

Otherwise we might just as well stop pretending and change the symbolic image of this country from that of a sternly pointing “I NEED YOU” Uncle Sam to that of a passive imp propped up on elbows and knees exclaiming, “Do me!” ]]> Joe Walther http://www.talkdelaware.com/showthread.php?21868-The-IRS-A-quest-for-a-new-national-symbol! http://www.talkdelaware.com/showthread.php?21854-House-votes-to-repeal-ObamaCare-in-229-125-vote&goto=newpost Fri, 17 May 2013 04:48:28 GMT The Republican led house has voted, for the 37th time, to repeal President Obama’s health care law, even though GOP lawmakers know the Senate will... The Republican led house has voted, for the 37th time, to repeal President Obama’s health care law, even though GOP lawmakers know the Senate will not follow suit.
Democrats have called efforts to defund or partly scale back the Affordable Care Act a waste of time -- even an obsession.
But Republicans see a political advantage to keeping the pressure up as the administration tries to get all the moving parts of the law working in the next few months.
They're hoping that problems with its implementation will help them recapture the Senate in next year's midterm elections.




Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013...#ixzz2TWRD9TpF ]]> longnecker http://www.talkdelaware.com/showthread.php?21854-House-votes-to-repeal-ObamaCare-in-229-125-vote http://www.talkdelaware.com/showthread.php?21851-Eric-holder&goto=newpost Thu, 16 May 2013 14:00:38 GMT The latest Department of Justice outrage included turning over confidential information about Holder’s critics and political enemies to the media.... The latest Department of Justice outrage included turning over confidential information about Holder’s critics and political enemies to the media. You know, the sort of thing that got Richard Nixon and Alberto Gonzales forced out of office. But Holder is a Democrat, so he gets to do whatever he wants, and no one will ever do anything about it. ]]> Alphie http://www.talkdelaware.com/showthread.php?21851-Eric-holder http://www.talkdelaware.com/showthread.php?21829-A-mother-s-love-of-her-son-but-not-the-gov-!&goto=newpost Mon, 13 May 2013 11:54:08 GMT http://video.foxnews.com/v/2375960025001/pat-smith-has-mothers-day-message-for-hillary-clinton/?playlist_id=1621774019001 http://video.foxnews.com/v/237596002...=1621774019001 ]]> Alphie http://www.talkdelaware.com/showthread.php?21829-A-mother-s-love-of-her-son-but-not-the-gov-! http://www.talkdelaware.com/showthread.php?21811-quot-Stupid-is-as-Stupid-does-quot&goto=newpost Fri, 10 May 2013 12:56:11 GMT And now we have to add the Boston Marathon, April, 2013 Chronological Order of Muslim Attacks Everyone: This is so incredible! I remembered... And now we have to add the Boston Marathon, April, 2013
Chronological Order of Muslim Attacks

Everyone: This is so incredible! I remembered each happening, but
when it is laid out in chronological order - WOW! A lot of Americans
have become so insulated from reality that they imagine that America can
suffer defeat without any inconvenience to themselves.

Pause a moment, reflect back. These events are actual events from
history. They really happened!!! Do you remember?

1. In 1968, Bobby Kennedy was shot and killed by a Muslim male.

2. In 1972 at the Munich Olympics, athletes were kidnapped and
massacred by Muslim males.

3. In 1972 a Pan Am 747 was hijacked and eventually diverted to
Cairo where a fuse was lit on final approach and it was blown up shortly
after landing by Muslim males.

4. In 1973 a Pan Am 707 was destroyed in Rome, with 33 people
killed, when it was attacked with grenades by Muslim males.

5. In 1979, the US embassy in Iran was taken over by Muslim males.

6. During the 1980's a number of Americans were kidnapped in
Lebanon by Muslim males.

7. In 1983, the US Marine barracks in Beirut was blown up by Muslim
males
8. In 1985, the cruise ship Achille Lauro was hijacked and a 70
year old American passenger was murdered and thrown overboard in his
wheelchair by Muslim males.

9. In 1985, TWA flight 847 was hijacked at Athens, and a US Navy
diver trying to rescue passengers was murdered by Muslim males.

10. In 1988, Pan Am Flight 103 was bombed by Muslim males.

11. In 1993, the World Trade Center was bombed the first time by
Muslim males.

12. In 1998, the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by
Muslim males
13. On 9/11/01, four airliners were hijacked; two were used as
missiles to take down the World Trade Centers and of the remaining two,
one crashed into the US Pentagon and the other was diverted and crashed
by the passengers. Thousands of people were killed by Muslim males.

14. In 2002, the United States fought a war in Afghanistan against
Muslim males.

15. In 2002, reporter Daniel Pearl was kidnapped and beheaded
by---you guessed it---Muslim males.

No, I really don't see a pattern here to justify profiling, do you?
So, to ensure we Americans never offend anyone, particularly fanatics
intent on killing us, airport security screeners will no longer be
allowed to profile certain people. Absolutely No Profiling! Because
President Obama---a professed Muslim---bowed to a Muslim king? They must
conduct random searches of 80-year-old women, little kids, airline
pilots with proper identification, secret agents who are members of the
President's security detail, 85-year old Congressmen with metal hips,
and Medal of Honor winner and former Governor Joe Foss, but leave Muslim
Males alone lest they be guilty of profiling. Have the American people
completely lost their Minds, or just their Power of Reason???
“The sweetest sound I know is the Muslim call to prayer” –
Barack Hussein Obama ]]> Alphie http://www.talkdelaware.com/showthread.php?21811-quot-Stupid-is-as-Stupid-does-quot http://www.talkdelaware.com/showthread.php?21803-Lawmakers-split-on-impact-of-access-to-benefits-for-illegal-immigrants-in-Senate-bill&goto=newpost Thu, 09 May 2013 04:59:14 GMT * As the Senate prepares to take up comprehensive immigration legislation, one of the most pressing questions is how and when illegal immigrants who...

• As the Senate prepares to take up comprehensive immigration legislation, one of the most pressing questions is how and when illegal immigrants who set out on the path to citizenship qualify for federal benefits.

Lawmakers disagree sharply on this front, which could drive debate as they begin formal work on the bill Thursday.
Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., points out that the proposal says applicants would not qualify for at least 10-13 years -- and would not qualify for another five years after getting a green card, under current law.
Further, Rubio argues that the proposal has "very specific" rules governing anyone who could be considered a "public charge," or someone who would live off the government dole.
"If you are a public charge, you don't even qualify for renewal of that temporary status that you're getting," Rubio said.
But Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., another Republican senator who has emerged as one of the chief critics of the bill, says the law does not properly enforce that provision.
Sessions told Fox News that the so-called "public charge" law, as currently written, has been "totally ignored" to date. And he argued that many immigrants will be eligible for benefits much sooner than proponents claim -- including the so-called "dreamers," young illegal immigrants brought to the U.S. their parents.
Sessions said 2-3 million illegal immigrants who claim that status will be able to have access to federal benefits in five years.
And, he added, eventually "everyone who entered illegally will be able to accept any benefits this country offers."
After the 15-year waiting period, the number accessing federal benefits could be an additional 10 or 11 million.
Nevertheless, Rubio insists there will be checks at every stage of the process.
"When you re-apply at the six-year mark, by the way you're not eligible for any public benefits at that point, you have to prove you're not a public charge," he said.
A controversial report released earlier this week by the conservative Heritage Foundation estimated that, under the bill, the total cost of legalizing 11 million illegal immigrants could approach $6.3 trillion over the course of their lifetimes. The study factored in taxes those immigrants would pay, but also the services and other benefits that would be spent on them.
It has come under heavy scrutiny from some conservative economists who say it ignored significant factors - like the possibility of some of these illegal immigrants moving up the income ladder after coming out of the shadows, while expanding the economy and boosting federal tax revenue.
Sessions and other critics are unconvinced.
"We respect people who want to come to America. We believe that we should accept immigrants," Sessions said. "But we've got to be realistic about the impact."
As the debate wages on, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, on Wednesday offered an amendment to end the dispute -- by proposing to let illegal immigrants stay but deny them from ever receiving any "means-tested benefits," or welfare.




Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013...#ixzz2SlhWYE5D ]]> longnecker http://www.talkdelaware.com/showthread.php?21803-Lawmakers-split-on-impact-of-access-to-benefits-for-illegal-immigrants-in-Senate-bill http://www.talkdelaware.com/showthread.php?21719-Words-from-a-patriot&goto=newpost Mon, 29 Apr 2013 11:53:48 GMT Judge Jeanine to 'mother of jihadis': We don't want you here

Couldn`t have said it better! The judge has a heart of a patriot. ]]> Alphie http://www.talkdelaware.com/showthread.php?21719-Words-from-a-patriot http://www.talkdelaware.com/showthread.php?21713-Tourists-in-the-Whitehouse&goto=newpost Sat, 27 Apr 2013 15:01:04 GMT Taxpayers spent $1.4 billion dollars on everything from staffing, housing, flying and entertaining President Obama and his family last year,...

Taxpayers spent $1.4 billion dollars on everything from staffing, housing, flying and entertaining President Obama and his family last year, according to the author of a new book on taxpayer-funded presidential perks.
In comparison, British taxpayers spent just $57.8 million on the royal family.
Author Robert Keith Gray writes in “Presidential Perks Gone Royal” that Obama isn’t the only president to have taken advantage of the expensive trappings of his office. But the amount of money spent on the first family, he argues, has risen tremendously under the Obama administration and needs to be reined in.

Gray told The Daily Caller that the $1.4 billion spent on the Obama family last year is the “total cost of the presidency,” factoring the cost of the “biggest staff in history at the highest wages ever,” a 50 percent increase in the numbers of appointed czars and an Air Force One “running with the frequency of a scheduled air line.”
“The most concerning thing, I think, is the use of taxpayer funds to actually abet his re-election,” Gray, who worked in the Eisenhower administration and for other Republican presidents, said in an interview with TheDC on Wednesday.
“The press has been so slow in picking up on this extraordinary increase in the president’s expenses,” Gray told TheDC. (RELATED: Five shocking truths about Michelle Obama)
Specifically, Gray said taxpayer dollars are subsidizing Obama’s re-election effort when he uses Air Force One to jet across the country campaigning.
When the trip is deemed political, it’s customary for the president to pay the equivalent of a first class commercial ticket for certain passengers. But Gray says that hardly covers the taxpayer cost of flying the president and his staffers around on Air Force One.

“When the United States’ billion-dollar air armada is being used politically, is it fair to taxpayers that we only be reimbursed by the president’s campaign committee for the value of one first-class commercial ticket for each passenger who is deemed aboard ‘for political purposes?’” Gray asks in the book.
“And is that bargain-price advantage fair to those opposing an incumbent president?” (SEE ALSO: Millions of taxpayer dollars used for Disney World conference)
In the book, Gray admits Americans want their president to be safe and comfortable but argues the system should be reformed to stop the amount of unquestioned perks given to the president.
“There is no mechanism for anyone’s objection if a president were to pay his chief of staff $5,000,000 a year,” he told TheDC. “And nothing but a president’s conscience can dissuade him from buying his own reelection with use of some public money.”
Aside from a salary, the president gets a $50,000 a year expense account, a $100,000 travel account, $19,000 entertainment budget and an additional million for “unanticipated needs,” he notes.


Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/26/ta...#ixzz2Rft05USg

]]> Alphie http://www.talkdelaware.com/showthread.php?21713-Tourists-in-the-Whitehouse