Church of the Good Earth 1963 and Beyond

I don't understand the question.. Romney had nothing to do with what??

 

Will do

 

With Whatever. I'm just trying to throw in some kind of weird diversion, so the we can take your mind off of being angry.

"LOOK THAT WAY" ------------->

Hee Hee Hee

On well.

 

So true! It's the corporations and those super rich that pulls the strings.....seriously folks,or not, my post as supposed to be funny....oh we'll, that's the problem with posting...no facial expressions,etc....
Time to go in the garden & pick some peas ,lettuce for lunch......enjoy the day...

 

lol, I am not angry Kennykins. Just bc I stand up for myself does not mean I am angry. It only means I will not be intimidated.

Where did I get angry, bc Alice was harassing me. I am not a pussy. I am not afraid. I will state my opinion on whatever I feel like posting it on.. How does that make me angry.

Alice's insults against me should bother everyone. No One has Ever played the race card in here. We aren't into racism. I have my likes and dislikes but to call me a racist bc I am against having 11 million illegal immigrants released into Texas as legals.is not something I want for my state and I have the Right to say so. I am not a cow to be herded into a dictatorship. Period. And yes I blame the present administration for all this crap America is going through, doesn't every one?

Their lies are compounded by more lies. Nothing they do or say is for the american ppl, it is only for the elite. That does make me angry, but nothing Alice says can sway my opinion of the government and she is been taken in ONLY bc Barry is black. If he was white she would keep her mouth shut.

Plain and simple.

 

Alice quit crawfishing. You out and out called me a Racist. Was that a joke?!? No It Wasn't. Then you tried to cover with, ohh, it was my friends and family that thought that, well maybe so, but you are the one that said it girl friend. You are one person in facebook and a different person in here.

To me that's being a bit two faced. It was not just one incident you did it to me twice, once over the constitution and then over immigration. You commented that the constitution should be rewritten bc it was written by a bunch of old fat white guys. Your words. To me that is a blatant racial sluragainst our forfathers and americans at large. You Alice, are more racist then anyone in here my dear.

You owe me an apology.

 

if there was no puppet masters and there was one woman that ye could get in who would ya go for ?

 

There is no other female candidate that l can see that is running, Roamy. But who knows what will appear next yr.. It's still cosmetically a man's world.

 

ya,maybe a great woman will appear an get in someday an make a good difference:love:x

 

I can't think of a woman insane enough to want the job. That aside most have too many strings attached or too much baggage and that goes for the men likely to seek the office also. Perhaps we should reinstitute the Draft!

 

I believe I already said that here, Ranger. Anybody who aspires to office should be disqualified. We sbould draft the most qualified and beg them to serve or else. ;-)

 

I think you're both right Ranger and Sag Nasty. Maybe they should also be hooked up to a lie detector while taking the oath.

Here lately one can't distinguish a lie from the truth, when it comes out of a politician's mouth.

I think the white house is housing a bunch of traitors in it right now. They are not for the people they serve. The Administration is stripping us of our rights signing executive orders with out congress. They are spying on his constituents, the american people. Being unavailable during crises. It just plain sucks all the way around.

You say this is not the place to talk about it, but I ask you. What were we about in the 60s/70s. Did we not take it to the streets in protest when we did not like the way the gov and big corporations were turning us into slave to the machine.

Have we lost our edge. Have we grown old and weak. Are we to turn our heads while our nation crumbles. I bet half of the hippies didn't even bother to vote. Ohh The Ballot Box is fix, that's right..ppl voting twice, illegals voting, WTF?

There is a comet coming way to close to the earth, very soon. Some says it Nibiru The Twelth Planet. Yikes, but whatever it is.. they are not telling us about it.

It is said that the tides will rise up and take out a lot of the southern coast, Mississippi, Louisiana and Florida.

I don't know if all that is true, but I wouldn't put it past HAARP to use this event to line us out.

 

When it comes to pols on the national scene if they're breathing they lied to get there and if their lips are moving they are lying now.

If you want to understand our current pres study not Islam, but the 'Sayings/actions of Chairm.....errr Mayor Daily'

 

It's 20 million illegals.

We need to talk the public into a war with Mexico. Do you recall what are government did to law abiding United States citizens who were of Japanese dissent during World War II ?

Internment camps for the duration.

The selling point for the war would be we conquer the country and keep it, and every U.S. citizen gets free land. The country becomes a trust. If people and companies there, want their land back they have to buy it back from the trust. The trust pay money out equally to each of you citizen shareholders. Free money.

Plus we citizens would own Pemex. their nation gas and oil company. No more high gas prices.

What do you think?

 

well said Mary..

 

This is Directly against the LAW for any non-profit Church. Please delete all traces of this, and put it into some other thread.

WE have filed as a church, as a NON Profit organization.

Are you an employee of the IRS or the NSA or FBI who is trying to bate us into a political debate, so the we cannot be recognized as a CHURCH ????

We are here to Save the World. Not the Politicians. Peace.

We will not be bated.

Historical facts. The Republicans have been spying on us U.S. citizens ever since 1968. They have also been undermining our constitutional rights ever since 1968. So what else is new.

It is common knowledge that everybody in the entire U.S. and the world is being spying on and that every communication of every person on phone, e-mail, and on the Internet is being sucked up, screened and recorded within giant supercomputers.

I saw a rerun of a TV Documentary shown on the Discovery Chanel, 7 years ago. The NSA spies on everything.

Anyone with fingers and a brain can search the Internet and find real info on this Spying topic.

This is all ancient History.

Only Straight People are living in denial.

This is History.

Start a thread. This is not the Place. Unless you are an agent provocateur, of the government.

Bye

 

Kennykins,

A church can discuss the state of affairs in our country. We just cannot tell ppl who to vote for or contribute $ to political campaigns.

These things concern us, as they are denying certain groups tax exemption. Read the bylaws again.

Love you kenny, glad to see you

 

Look Here Kenny, we're cool. It's OK Really.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects a church’s right to speak out on the moral issues affecting society. In addition, while the Internal Revenue Code prohibits churches from assessing the qualifications of specific candidates for public office, it does not infringe upon a church’s inherent right to speak out on the morality of specific political issues.

The Supreme Court has unequivocally found that religious speech is at the apex of protected speech under the First Amendment. Capitol Square Review and Advisory Bd. v. Pinette, 515 U.S. 753 (1995). The Supreme Court stated that “in Anglo-American history, at least, government suppression of speech has so commonly been directed precisely at religious speech that a free-speech clause without religion would be Hamlet without the prince." Id.at761.

The Supreme Court also noted in upholding tax exemptions for churches:

Adherents of particular faiths and individual churches frequently take strong positions on public issues including, . . . vigorous advocacy of legal or constitutional positions. Of course, churches as much as secular bodies and private citizens have that right.

Walz v. Tax Comm'n of N.Y., 397 U.S. 664, 670 (1969).

As a first principle, the government may not censor a church’s' speech on moral issues of the day without running afoul of the First Amendment. However, the Internal Revenue Code has circumscribed the rights of 501(c)(3) organizations to engage in political speech.

In exchange for the receipt of tax-exempt status, I.R.C. § 501(c)(3) absolutely prohibits churches and other tax-exempt organizations from campaigning for or against a candidate for public office. If a church participates or interferes, directly or indirectly, in any political campaign for or against any candidate for public office by publishing and distributing certain written material or making oral statements regarding the candidate, then a church can lose its tax-exempt status for violating the campaigning ban. I.R.C. § 1.501(c)(3)-1(c)(3)(iii). Quite simply courts have interpreted 501(c)(3) to ban any degree of participation or intervention in a campaign for public office. Ass’n of the Bar of N.Y. v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 858 F.2d 876, 879 (2d Cir. 1988).

While the ACLJ believes that this campaigning ban impermissibly infringes on the First Amendment rights of churches, it is nevertheless the current law. Consequently, churches desiring to keep their tax-exempt status must stringently adhere to it.

While some provisions within the Internal Revenue Code prohibit a church from engaging in certain political conduct, it also provides “an alternate means by which [a church could] communicate its sentiments about candidates for political office." Branch Ministries v. Rossotti, 211 F.3d 137, 143 (D.C. Cir. 2000). In Rossotti, the court explained that a church that wishes to be more politically active can form a political action committee (“PAC”) within a church-created 501(c)(4) organization. Id. However, a church that wishes to do this must proceed carefully. The related 501(c)(4) organization must be separately incorporated from the church and it "is also subject to the ban on intervening in political campaigns." Id. However, to legally circumvent this ban, the church-created 501(c)(4) organization may form a PAC which “would be free to participate in political campaigns." Id.; see also 26 C.F.R. § 1.527-6(f), (g) (1999). It is the PAC formed within the 501(c)(4) organization that may engage in political activities, not the 501(c)(4) organization. Id. As long as churches follow this procedure, churches can indirectly support or oppose political campaigns or legislation.

Public charities and houses of worship may permit the use of auditoriums, meeting rooms and gymnasium facilities for civic or political events, such as polling places on Election Day, without violating the political intervention ban. The facilities of public charities and houses of worship may also be rented to third-parties, including candidates or political parties, as long as they are not provided free or at a reduced charge, they are made available on the same and equal basis to all candidates and political committees, and such events are not promoted or advertised by the charity or house of worship. See, IRS Publication 1828 (pp. 13-14)(2008); and Revenue Ruling 2007-41, 2007-25 I.R.B. 1421, 1425 (June 18, 2007).

In addition, churches may distribute voter guides without running afoul of the campaign ban. I.R.C. § 501(c)(3) organizations and churches may make available, or distribute, a voter guide which includes all viable candidates for an elective office, provided they follow certain guidelines. IRS Revenue Rulings 78-248, 80-282. Specifically, the material must be neutral and unbiased in its statement of candidates and must include candidates' positions on a broad range of issues. A voter guide cannot endorse candidates or direct individuals to vote for or against a candidate. Also, the voter guide must not contain editorial comments about any political party aimed at inducing voters in a particular way. This includes grading the candidate on his or her positions on the issues of the day. If church-distributed voting guides adhere to these restrictions, a church will not run afoul of the candidate campaigning ban. Of note, churches and § 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations may also engage in voter registration efforts, provided such efforts are neutral.

The IRS has also conditioned a church's tax-exempt status on the requirement that "no substantial part of the activities" of the organization may constitute "carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation." I.R.C. § 501(c)(3). If a substantial part of the activities of an exempt organization, such as a church, consists of lobbying, the organization will not be tax-exempt under § 501(c)(3). However, certain tax-exempt organizations may elect to engage in limited lobbying activities under the objective expenditure allowances calculated under I.R.C. § 501(h). It is important to note that churches are ineligible to make this election. I.R.C. § 501(h)(3) & (4).

Organizations which cannot make the expenditure elections under § 501(h) are governed by the "substantial part of activities" test. In regard to determining what constitutes a “substantial part of the activities” of a tax-exempt organization, the issue of substantiality is essentially a question of fact and circumstance. Ky. Bar Found., Inc. v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 78 T.C. 921 (1982).

Based on relevant case law, it appears that as long as an organization expends only five percent (5%) or so of its overall expenditures on legislative activity such activity will be regarded as "insubstantial" and not result in a loss of exemption. Seasongood v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 227 F.2d 907, 912 (6th Cir. 1955) (establishing a five percent safe harbor rule); World Family Corp. v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 81 T.C. 958 (1983) (finding that an exempt organization's lobbying activities which were less than ten percent (10%)--but more than 5%--of its total efforts being "insubstantial").

It should be noted, however, that in Christian Echoes Nat'l Ministry, Inc. v. U.S., 470 F.2d 849 (10th Cir. 1972), the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the "substantiality" test when a radio ministry directly intervened in a political campaign and engaged in lobbying activities. Instead, the Christian Echoes court explained “substantiality" of the political activity should be assessed based on “whether a substantial part of [an organization’s] activities [not just expenditures] was to influence or attempt to influence legislation." Id. at 855.

In light of the vagueness of the substantiality test, Congress enacted I.R.C. § 501(h), the Expenditure Election, to define what amount of expenditures on lobbying is "substantial." Exempt organizations, other than churches and private foundations, may elect to be subject to definite limitations on the amount of permissible lobbying activities and expenditures. I.R.C. §§ 501(h) & 4911. In no event, however, regardless of the size of the charity, may the permitted total level of expenditures for lobbying exceed $1,000,000 for any one year. I.R.C. § 4911(c).

In sum, churches have clear First Amendment rights to speak out on the moral issues of the day, and to develop, prepare and distribute information on issues of public policy. These rights include the distribution of voter guides which are neutral and unbiased in the presentation of a candidate's position on a broad range of issues. Also, voter guides cannot endorse candidates, or urge individuals to vote for or against candidates. Churches also have the right to engage in a limited amount of lobbying activity, as long as such activity does not constitute a "substantial" part of the churches' total activities. Moreover, non-church exempt organizations may engage in lobbying activity so long as they do not exceed the expenditure limitations specified in § 501(h).

 

As I read, it looks to say. We can't talk about it during election time. We are not criticizing a candidate. We are talking about what is occurring in the WH right now. What is published in our newspapers and on our tvs are current events that affect us all.

 

My read on this issue is that as a church we may not endorse or condemn a particular candidate in words or $s.......

The moral rightness or wrongness of an issue is open for discussion.