Archive for February 2016
I broke the back of the anti-Second Amendment Million Mom March in 2000 byexposing its use of 501(c)(3) tax-exempt money to endorse House candidates on its Apple Pie Award web pages. The organization crumpled up when columnist J.R. Labbe published the information I sent her and was later found to have filed a highly creative Form 990 tax return in which the organization told the IRS that it had spent no money to influence legislation. The organization liquidated in 2001, and the current Million Mom March is not the same corporate entity.
I also noted in an American Thinker piece:
We also need to ask Ms. Clinton publicly and frequently how much 501(c)(3) tax exempt money she plans to divert to her campaign next year the way she helped the Million Mom March divert 501(c)(3) funds to Al Gore’s campaign as well as those of Democratic House candidates in 2000.
I discovered today (after an online argument with some gun control supporters) that the Brady Campaign to Prevent Handgun Violence was actually stupid enough to do this, and that Hillary Clinton welcomed the diversion of 501(c)(3) tax-exempt resources to her presidential campaign:
The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence will endorse Hillary Clinton for president Tuesday in Iowa, the former secretary of state’s campaign announced.
I was doing a Google search on the Brady Campaign to see if it had had other “issues” with tax exempt money, and foundhttp://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/archive/index.php/t-177729.html
which says it’s actually two different organizations.
The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence is a 501(c)(3). Donations are tax deductible, so no lobbying.
OTOH The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence is a 501(c)(4). Not tax-deductible.
This is NOT, however, evident from the Web pages that endorse political candidates.
The one on the left takes you tohttps://secure.bradycampaign.org/page/contribute/center-enough which says “Thank you for your donation to the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, our 501(c)(3) *Donations to the Brady Center ARE eligible for tax deduction.”
So I think it is fair to say that they are responsible for any confusion here. In fact, their page for the “Brady Center” has the logo of the “Brady Campaign” on it. However, I don’t want to tell people that the 501(c)(3) entity is misusing tax exempt money if this is not the case regardless of the responsibility for the confusion.
Even if the Brady Campaign is 501(c)(4) and the Brady Center is 501(c)(3), the propriety of the manner in which they present their information is highly questionable.
The Brady Center is not hosted on a separate Web domain and, in fact,http://www.bradycampaign.org/bradycenter
“All information © 2016 Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence”
and in fact http://www.bradycampaign.org/legal-action-project is copyrighted not by the 501(c)(3) Brady Center, but by the 501(c)(4) Brady Campaign. (The same goes for the other Brady Center Web pages.)
The Republican Party and NRA need to immediately call out Ms. Clinton by pointing out Brady’s tax-exempt status and asking whether she will therefore reject the group’s endorsement. This, of course, requires her to (1) embarrass herself and the entire anti-Second Amendment movement by admitting that Brady is diverting tax-exempt money to an election or (2) make herself a party to the illegal use of tax-exempt money. Either choice is probably the end of the road for her because of the importance of gun control to her campaign.
This is far from Brady’s only diversion of its tax-exempt resources into political campaigns, as shown by the list below. These links are all on the Brady Campaign’s own website and cannot therefore be dismissed as fabrications or internet rumors. Those who cannot learn from their own history are doomed to repeat it, and this should be the end of the line for the Brady Campaign itself rather than just the Million Mom March.
- Brady Campaign Endorses Brad Schneider in Illinois 10th Congressional Bid
- Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence Endorses Congressman Ed Markey for U.S. Senate in Massachusetts Special Election
- Brady Campaign, Chapters Endorse Chuck Riley for Oregon State Senate
- Brady Campaign, Chapters Endorse N.Y. Sen. Mark Grisanti for Re-Election
- Brady Campaign Endorses Lt. Governor Brown for Maryland Governor
An organization will not qualify for tax exemption under IRC 501(c)(3) unless it “does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.” A determination. whether an organization has participated or intervened is based upon all of the relevant facts and circumstances.
Avoid Political Campaign Intervention (directly from the IRS) adds:
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state, and local level. Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes.
Res ipsa loquitur – the thing speaks for itself. The Brady Campaign has placed itself on record as advocating the election of no fewer than five candidates for major offices on its official website while claiming 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status, and Hillary Clinton is apparently quite comfortable with its support for her campaign.
On another note, a search on the IRS’s Exempt Organizations Select Check for “Brady” shows that the tax exemptions of literally dozens of local chapters have been revoked for the following reason:
The federal tax exemption of this organization was automatically revoked for its failure to file a Form 990-series return or notice for three consecutive years. The information listed below for each organization is historical; it is current as of the organization’s effective date of automatic revocation. The information is not necessarily current as of today’s date. Nor does this automatic revocation necessarily reflect the organization’s tax-exempt or non-exempt status. The organization may have applied to the IRS for recognition of exemption and been recognized by the IRS as tax-exempt after its effective date of automatic revocation.
This should underscore to the rank and file of the gun control movement the blatant dishonesty of the so-called leaders who are asking for their votes (on 501[c] tax-exempt money), donations, and/or volunteer time. The side that is right does not need to lie, or to play fast and loose with tax-exempt charitable donations.
[Continue reading on American Thinker …]
By Michael Brown
February 8, 2016
Two tweets in the last week, one from Cosmopolitan and one from NARAL, reveal the depravity of these radical pro-abortionists.
Although the tweet has now been removed, Cosmopolitan sent out this message on February 4th: “Texas women are having more babies since Planned Parenthood was defunded,” followed by a sad face. This was linked to a picture featuring the graphic #StandwithPP.
Oh, the tragedy!
Texas women are having more babies.
More children are being spared the horrors of abortion – being sliced up, burned up, and sucked into pieces in the womb – and are seeing the light of day.
More mothers and fathers are holding precious little human beings in their arms, crying with joy at the new life they have produced.
What could be more terrible?
But it gets worse and, if possible, even more absurd.
NARAL, the National Abortion Rights Action League, took strong exception to a silly Doritos commercial during the Super Bowl. (Yes, the same Doritos that produced the rainbow-colored, gay-honoring Doritos last year.)
As summarized by Dave Urbanski on The Blaze, “The humorous clip showed a pregnant woman getting an ultrasound of her ‘beautiful baby’ – while Dad munched on Doritos chips.
“‘Really? You’re eating Doritos?’ the now-annoyed mother said to him.
“Soon the unborn child on the ultrasound screen was sensing when the chuckling father waved a Doritos chip near Mom’s belly — and the baby instinctively reached for it in the womb.”
“The child had only one place to go, presumably setting a birth in motion (as everyone in the room started to scream).”
Now, before I share what NARAL tweeted, let’s think about this like rational human beings.
What could be so offensive about this comical ad?
Nothing graphic or distasteful appears on the screen; the commercial is clearly meant in fun; it shows a normal ultrasound; the big surprise is apparently a baby being born ahead of schedule.
That’s how good Doritos are.
End of subject.
But not for NARAL, which tweeted through the Super Bowl, calling out ads it identified as “sexist” or “transphobic.”
For NARAL, the Doritos’ commercial crossed a line: “#NotBuyingIt – that @Doritos ad using #antichoice tactic of humanizing fetuses & sexist tropes of dads as clueless & moms as uptight. #SB50
[Continue reading on Townhall …]
This past December marked three years since the massacre at Sandy Hook. Commemorating the anniversary, President Obama took to Facebook to pen a post that wondered how we as a nation explain congressional inaction on gun control to the victims’ families. This type of rhetoric has been a common refrain from the president in the wake of other mass shootings since Newtown and the near-daily shootings in cities like Chicago. But despite attempts by President Obama, congressional Democrats, and the gun control lobby to push for stricter gun laws as the answer to gun violence, the nation remains divided on the issue.
So where do academics stand on the relationship between gun ownership and crime? A newly released survey of experts from the Crime Prevention Research center found that researchers supported what Second Amendment advocates have argued all along regarding concealed handgun laws, gun-free zones, self-defense and crime, and suicide and guns.
Authors of the report John R. Lott, Jr., president of the Crime Prevention Research Center, and Gary Mauser, Professor Emeritus of the Marketing Department at Simon Fraser University, surveyed criminologists and economists who had published peer-reviewed empirical research on gun issues. The survey found that differences exist between these two groups of academics, with the economists much more inclined to believe guns makes people safer. Criminologists, on the other hand, do not hold this belief as strongly. They are also more divided on the idea of deterrence than economists. Still, when their responses are combined, the results show that the researchers believe guns are used more for self defense than crime; gun-free zones fail to deter criminals, rather, they attract them; guns in the house don’t increase the risk of suicide; those who hold concealed handgun permits are more law-abiding than the average American; and permitted concealed handguns lower the murder rate.
[Continue reading on Townhall …]
‘It’s comforting to know that if he does pass, he won’t be alone.’
Brittani and Ian McIntire were stunned to learn that they were expecting twins, Mason and Madilyn. After several doctor’s appointments, the couple learned that one baby wasn’t developing as well as the other.
Mason, who currently weighs in at 9 ounces, has a hole in his heart and an abnormal brain. Madilyn is just over 2 pounds. Mason’s best chance at survival would be to operate on his heart, but doctors don’t want to take that risk because of his brain, Fox 8 reported.
During a recent ultrasound, however, the doctors captured tiny unborn baby Mason’s hand gripping his sister’s much larger hand.
[Continue reading on The Federalist …]
Apple won’t unlock San Bernardino jihad killer’s iPhone, but unlocked phones for the Feds 70 times before
By Robert Spencer
February 18, 2016
Is Apple really trying to safeguard freedom and individual rights, or just pandering to its Leftist anti-American, pro-jihad base?
“Apple Unlocked iPhones for the Feds 70 Times Before,” by Shane Harris, The Daily Beast, February 17, 2016:
A 2015 court case shows that the tech giant has been willing to play ball with the government before—and is only stopping now because it might ‘tarnish the Apple brand.’
Apple CEO Tim Cook declared on Wednesday that his company wouldn’t comply with a government search warrant to unlock an iPhone used by one of the San Bernardino killers, a significant escalation in a long-running debate between technology companies and the government over access to people’s electronically-stored private information.
But in a similar case in New York last year, Apple acknowledged that it could extract such data if it wanted to. And according to prosecutors in that case, Apple has unlocked phones for authorities at least 70 times since 2008. (Apple doesn’t dispute this figure.)
In other words, Apple’s stance in the San Bernardino case may not be quite the principled defense that Cook claims it is. In fact, it may have as much to do with public relations as it does with warding off what Cook called “an unprecedented step which threatens the security of our customers.”
[Continue reading on Jihad Watch … ]
Editor’s Note: This post has been updated.
Yes, I know that there’s no such thing as assault weapons, but let’s just entertain this awful piece of liberal jargon for the sake of argument. Over at Hot Air, Jazz Shaw noted that it might be time for the high court to definitively rule on whether it was a constitutional right for Americans to own AR-15 rifles.
Second Amendment enthusiasts were again hit with disappointment last December when the Court decided to take a pass on whether to hear oral arguments on an assault weapons ban implemented in the Chicago-area city of Highland Park. Now, on the east coast, deep-blue Maryland’s 2013 assault weapons ban is back in the legal crosshairs, with the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that a stricter legal standard should have been applied to ascertain its constitutionality. It’s a tremendous decision, though the current ban remains in effect while the legal camps begin arming themselves for the fight ahead.
For starters, as we rehash the legal fight over Maryland’s ban, we’ll have to take another look at the caveats placed by the Supreme Court during the landmark DC v. Heller case, which guaranteed an individual right to own firearms in the defense of one’s life or property that are not associated with a well-regulated militia. This was applied to federal enclaves; it was expanded to the states in the McDonald v. Chicago decision.
[Continue reading on Townhall …]