Violation of the 1st Amendment

[Pablo]

Originally Posted By: eljefino


If they signed something saying they were an educational institution and the IRS came by a couple years later and said, hey, who'd you educate, why the ruckus?



You are serious?

The IRS should regulate who an educational institution teaches too?

Now if an commercial institution is making money teaching, sure they should pay taxes, just like any income. If they are teaching the Constitution for free and running on donations, the IRS should stop this practice??

 

[eljefino]

Originally Posted By: Pablo
Originally Posted By: eljefino


If they signed something saying they were an educational institution and the IRS came by a couple years later and said, hey, who'd you educate, why the ruckus?



You are serious?

The IRS should regulate who an educational institution teaches too?

Now if an commercial institution is making money teaching, sure they should pay taxes, just like any income. If they are teaching the Constitution for free and running on donations, the IRS should stop this practice??


Ok, how about this question:

"Did you educate anybody? What is your curriculum? Who are your teachers? Where is your classroom? What percentage of your incoming donations is spent on education?"

 

[Pablo]

Originally Posted By: eljefino
Originally Posted By: Pablo
Originally Posted By: eljefino


If they signed something saying they were an educational institution and the IRS came by a couple years later and said, hey, who'd you educate, why the ruckus?



You are serious?

The IRS should regulate who an educational institution teaches too?

Now if an commercial institution is making money teaching, sure they should pay taxes, just like any income. If they are teaching the Constitution for free and running on donations, the IRS should stop this practice??


Ok, how about this question:

"Did you educate anybody? What is your curriculum? Who are your teachers? Where is your classroom? What percentage of your incoming donations is spent on education?"


What difference does it make?????!!!!!

The government approves the curriculum? The teachers?

Why does the government have to be so intrusive?

 

[andyd]

Meh, not my ox getting gored. I dont earn enough to be worth auditing. Income tax audits are guilty until proved innocent, in general. They have been used to pros/persecute people for yrs. Mobsters, left wingers, free thinkers in general, entertainers. disgraced politicians

 

[eljefino]

Originally Posted By: Pablo
Originally Posted By: eljefino
Originally Posted By: Pablo
Originally Posted By: eljefino


If they signed something saying they were an educational institution and the IRS came by a couple years later and said, hey, who'd you educate, why the ruckus?



You are serious?

The IRS should regulate who an educational institution teaches too?

Now if an commercial institution is making money teaching, sure they should pay taxes, just like any income. If they are teaching the Constitution for free and running on donations, the IRS should stop this practice??


Ok, how about this question:

"Did you educate anybody? What is your curriculum? Who are your teachers? Where is your classroom? What percentage of your incoming donations is spent on education?"


What difference does it make?????!!!!!

The government approves the curriculum? The teachers?

Why does the government have to be so intrusive?


501c: "I'm going to start a non profit business hiring blind people to assemble pens."

IRS: "Where are the blind people? Where are the pens?"

That question does not mean the gov't is approving a curriculum, it just means they want to see if the stuff on the application paperwork is really happening.

 

[salesrep]

The very fact that these actions are being defended at all is of great concern, as we are seeing the "transformation" of The USA before our very eyes. This IS different because the books were cooked in order to win the highest office in the land.

 

[Pablo]

Originally Posted By: eljefino


501c: "I'm going to start a non profit business hiring blind people to assemble pens."

IRS: "Where are the blind people? Where are the pens?"

That question does not mean the gov't is approving a curriculum, it just means they want to see if the stuff on the application paperwork is really happening.


If they are selling the pens at a profit and trying to be a 501(C), then that would not compute. They could not be a 501(C)1-29. But that's not what we are talking about here. We are talking about Jewish groups, pro-life groups, Constitutional education groups, etc all slowed or denied very deliberately. All the while, other groups that are blatantly political given 501(C) status with no questionnaires, no lists of donors, no questions asked about what they believe or what their prayers are. Quite disgusting actually. And you defend this? Seems quite odd.

 

[MrHorspwer]

Originally Posted By: Pablo
All the while, other groups that are blatantly political given 501(C) status with no questionnaires, no lists of donors, no questions asked about what they believe or what their prayers are. Quite disgusting actually. And you defend this? Seems quite odd.


And this shows your true feelings.

You're not upset about anybody's rights getting violated. You're upset that your party was the one that was scrutinized.

Quote:
All the while, other groups that are blatantly political given 501(C) status with no questionnaires, no lists of donors, no questions asked about what they believe or what their prayers are.


This doesn't say "excessive scrutinizing is unfair", which was the foundation of your *non-political* post.

This says, "it's unfair to scrutinize one group and not the other", which shows your political leanings when it's your party being scrutinized.

If you truly believed in the post title, that this whole thing is unconstitutional, "other groups" wouldn't matter.

Warning, blatant political statement ahead (at least I am up-front about it):

What's not so odd is that you follow right along with your party's blatant distortion of reality to twist events into something completely unrecognizable, yet conveniently self-serving.

And wrapping yourself with the Constitution through your distortion? "Quite disgusting actually."

 

[Bill in Utah]

Political through the thread = Locked