The American Taliban Strikes Again

Submitted by GreyWolf on Sat, 09/09/2017 - 9:50pm

I just saw this article about campaign finance and thought I'd share it here (just to put a pebble in your shoe. Oh, and this picture has nothing to do with the story, I just selected a humorous image from the image list ...)

Republicans tuck new deregulation of campaign financing into House spending bills
House Republicans are backing several provisions that could reshape campaign finance rules ahead of next year’s midterm elections as spending negotiations continue this fall.

... churches may be able to contribute to candidates without fear of losing their tax-exempt status, furthering President Donald Trump’s promise to “get rid of and totally destroy” a law that forbids such activity.

Don't you first have to rip up the Constitution? This is gonna get challenged as unconstitutional, right? So is this just a way to piddle away some money for lawyers, or do none of those nitwits actually comprehend why this is unconstitutional?

And, isn't the IRS gonna have something to say about this? And how many in the USA want to live in a theocracy anyway?

This is an an incredibly messy can of worms to be serving up at a time when they'll be trying to avoid a government shutdown ...

Wait a minute, perhaps I'm naive and that's really the whole point: "Let us ram this through or we shut it all down; We can load up on religious wing nuts during the mid-terms ... and it's only good for this year, so by the time this gets to any court the election will be over (and the courts won't hear any of the cases because it would be moot by that time.)"

Tags:

US Constitution; Donald Trump; Republicans; campaign finance

Vote

Comments

Submitted by jabney on Sat, 09/09/2017 - 10:13pm

I Found a Clue!

See that big-head on the left? They are after our coffee beans!

—

Strange that a harp of thousand strings should keep in tune so long

Submitted by Meteor Man on Sat, 09/09/2017 - 10:15pm

The Problem With Theocracy

is that everybody wants to be Theo.

Make your check out to God and send it to my P.O. Box! Your political contribution is as safe with me as the children in the choir. You can trust me!

What we really have here is an Idiocracy and everyone wants to be the biggest idiot. The downward spiral speeds up.

—

"They'll say we're disturbing the peace, but there is no peace. What really bothers them is that we are disturbing the war." Howard Zinn

Submitted by snoopydawg on Sat, 09/09/2017 - 10:23pm

Oh look at who is pushing for churches to be able to donate

to candidates without fear of losing their tax-exempt status.

As to your question about what the IRS can do, this article has more information. The link you provided goes to the wsj which is behind a paywall.

Nestled in House Spending Bill: Campaign Finance Deregulation

The Family Research Council, a conservative Christian group, is lobbying to repeal the Johnson Amendment and has worked with House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) to introduce a bill that would do so, according to its website.

A spokesman for Rep. Scalise said in an email he "has long supported efforts to protect the First Amendment rights of houses of worship and other nonprofit organizations" and that his bill would prevent "unelected IRS bureaucrats from stifling the free speech of religious leaders and others under the auspices of the Johnson Amendment." The Family Research Council did not return a request for comment.

What will the democrats do? Everything in their power to block this or will they continue to keep their powder dry?

—

If ICE were hunting down Trump’s critics, that would be bad but would make sense.
But ICE is hunting down Israel’s critics.

Submitted by GreyWolf on Sun, 09/10/2017 - 8:43pm

WSJ?

@snoopydawg no, my link is to market watch:

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/republicans-tuck-further-deregulation-of-campaign-financing-into-house-spending-bills-2017-09-09

But you've got a better link anyway.

Submitted by TheOtherMaven on Sat, 09/09/2017 - 11:27pm

These assheads just don't realize

that freedom OF religion necessarily includes freedom FROM religion (as in, freedom from having someone else's religion forced on you).

Religion-based hatred and violence (up to and including judicial murder for being of the "wrong" religion) was a very real problem in the Colonies, and the only solution the Founders could find (or anyone else can, either) was to forbid the state from favoring any religion.

—

There is no justice. There can be no peace.

Submitted by thanatokephaloides on Sun, 09/10/2017 - 12:11am

freedom from religion

@TheOtherMaven

Religion-based hatred and violence (up to and including judicial murder for being of the "wrong" religion) was a very real problem in the Colonies, and the only solution the Founders could find (or anyone else can, either) was to forbid the state from favoring any religion.

The Founders also realized that if any religion were preferred over any other, America would simply inherit the Wars of Religion that infested Europe from Constantine's time to that of George III. Massachusetts had already threatened to go that route as a Colony, with everything from witch hunts to the Catholic-Protestant conflicts.

Even with the First Amendment rights in place, until the Bill of Rights was imposed on the States by the Fourteenth Amendment, there were what amounted to several religious wars in this country. Catholics, Jews, Eastern Orthodox Christians were all targeted. Even today, Muslims are still targeted.

—

"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar

"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides

Submitted by TheOtherMaven on Sun, 09/10/2017 - 8:28am

You forgot Protestant-Protestant conflicts

@thanatokephaloides
Massachusetts-Bay was literally death on Quakers, whipping them out of the colony at the cart's tail and hanging them if they came back.

—

There is no justice. There can be no peace.

Submitted by thanatokephaloides on Sun, 09/10/2017 - 3:42pm

death on Quakers

@TheOtherMaven

You forgot Protestant-Protestant conflicts Massachusetts-Bay was literally death on Quakers, whipping them out of the colony at the cart's tail and hanging them if they came back.

I did indeed forget the Puritan vs. other-Protestant conflicts.

Is there any part of the Puritans' story where they weren't simply evil?

EDIT: Sir Thomas Overbury had it right:

A Puritan Is a diseased piece of Apocrypha: bind him to the Bible, and he corrupts the
whole text; ignorance, and fat feed are his founders; he nurses, railing, rabies,
and round breeches; his life is but a borrowed blast of wind, for between two
religions, as between two doors, he is ever whistling. Truly whose child he is,
is yet unknown, for willingly his faith allows no father: only thus far his pedigree is found.

—

"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar

"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides

Submitted by Ellen North on Mon, 09/11/2017 - 10:58am

@thanatokephaloides

@thanatokephaloides

Exactly! Such protections are to protect everyone equally from the abuses of powerful individuals and exclusive/self-interested institutions - not just corrupted government, corporations and the wealthiest.

The guarantee of that freedom within all States of the Union within the US for all to pursue their own path to happiness - as long as not unreasonably infringing upon the rights of others - forms a great part of the real American dream, rather than the pathological get-rich-quick-at-the-expense-of-others promoted as such.

The caging of people's minds/souls to suit the powerful has to rank among the worst and most insidious abuses. And I think Americans have had more than enough of that.

—

Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.

A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.

Submitted by Lookout on Sun, 09/10/2017 - 7:32am

We tried theocracy before....

they called it the dark ages!

—

“Until justice rolls down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream.”

Submitted by Meteor Man on Sun, 09/10/2017 - 1:28pm

The Dark Ages

@Lookout @Lookout
were not that "dark":

The caricature of the period is also reflected by more specific notions, such as the mistaken claim first propagated in the 19th century,[48][49] and still common in popular culture, that everyone in the Middle Ages thought the world was flat.[49][50]

In fact, lecturers in medieval universities commonly advanced the idea that the Earth was a sphere.[51] Lindberg and Ronald Numbers write: "There was scarcely a Christian scholar of the Middle Ages who did not acknowledge [Earth's] sphericity and even know its approximate circumference".[52] Other misconceptions such as: "the Church prohibited autopsies and dissections during the Middle Ages", "the rise of Christianity killed off ancient science", and "the medieval Christian church suppressed the growth of natural philosophy", are cited by Numbers as examples of myths that still pass as historical truth, although unsupported by current research.[53]

They even had fake news way back when.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Ages_(historiography)

(scroll down to Modern Popular Use)

—

"They'll say we're disturbing the peace, but there is no peace. What really bothers them is that we are disturbing the war." Howard Zinn