 | ||||
| Dr. David Marlett, Editor | 3 February 2001 | Vol. II #16 | ||
|
| ||||
| ||||
| ||||
| Dr. David Marlett, Editor | 3 February 2001 | Vol. II #16 | ||
|
| ||||
| ||||
Whenever something or someone is successful, there is some busybody in this city scheming to rein in it/him/her. In some cases, there is the theory (as in the Clinton administration's crusade against Internet entrepreneur Bill Gates) that if someone besides the government is making lots of money, there must be something sinister about it.
Other instances involve self-styled advocates of "democracy" who begin to suspect that perhaps there is a little too much "democracy" going on. Government must intervene.
The latter appears to be the case in a proposed IRS rule. Listed as IRS Announcement 2000-84, we are informed that "the Internal Revenue Service is considering the necessity of issuing guidelines that would clarify the application of the Internal Revenue Code to use of the Internet by [tax] exempt organizations."
The real thrust of Announcement 2000-84 comes later in the form of a question: "Does providing a hyperlink on a charitable organization that engages in political campaign intervention result in per se prohibited intervention?"
Although we are told, "The service is soliciting public comment" on this, NewsMax.com's phoned inquiries for information on the announcement were not acknowledged. We finally got our copy from someone whose lawyer knew the ropes well enough to dig it out.
And you have less that two weeks to submit your comments in writing. If you have never heard of the proposed rule by then (as few Americans have), too bad. Your time is up. Ever wonder how Washington places these curbs on your activities without your even knowing it? This is an example of how it happens.
The proposal has attracted the alarmed concern of nonprofit organizations on the right and the left. But surveys have shown that although there are many liberal Web sites out there, conservatives have made the most use of the Internet, "the people's medium." That could be because conservatives have concluded the Internet is the one medium that gives them a reasonable outlet without fear of left-wing censorship. That is why conservative nonprofits in particular see the rule as a threat.
Under this proposal, a nonprofit group that links itself to a political site as a reference could automatically be seen by the IRS as "engaging in political activity."
"That's ridiculous," according to an official of a conservative nonprofit tax-exempt group. "We link to political Web sites all the time - not to get around the tax-exempt law, but to give people a reference to what we're talking about."
"We've often provided a reference to the Democratic Party platform, even though we rarely agree with what they say. Does that put us in the position of political advocacy? This is crazy! It is a curb on the interchange of ideas and full discussion of issues."
Even if the nonprofit organization disagrees with the site to which it links, it could be held liable for third-party chat room speech at that link, while lacking any control over that speech.
It would seem to be a case of "Speak out at the risk of your own cause." A link site could conceivably injure the tax status of the nonprofit, either intentionally or through deliberate mischief.
The IRS document asks "what facts or circumstances are relevant in determining whether lobbying communications made on the internet are a substantial part of the organization's activities? For example, are location of the communication on the website (main page or subsidiary page) or number of hits relevant?"
One observer has interpreted this to mean that one person or group could intentionally injure a nonprofit by repeatedly viewing a page to make it appear that a page represents significant activity of the organization, and thus, for lobbying purposes, injure the nonprofit's tax status.
This controversy lends credence to those who fear that Washington is a city where the enemies of free speech never rest.
The IRS says public comments should be submitted in writing on or before Feb. 13 to: Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Ave., Washington, D.C. 20224. Attn: Judith Kindel: Exempt Organizations.
For further information, Ms. Kindel can be reached at 202-622-6494.
The Internet, more than most media, is relatively unregulated, untaxed and unfettered in the realm of free expression. There are those in this city who see that as a negative and are determined to do something about it.
[ NewsMax ]
President Bush said Friday that federal money should not be used for research on fetal tissue or on so-called stem cells derived from abortions, the week-old administration's third statement on the divisive abortion issue.
"I do not support research from aborted fetuses,'' Bush said.
He did not say whether he would move to block federal research funding - an act that many scientists say could stop promising research into therapies for numerous diseases. Aides said afterward he was signaling his intent to do so.
Bush had indicated his opposition to such research during the presidential campaign, but the remarks Friday were his first on the topic since taking over the White House a week ago.
[ AP ]
Much has been said about the Bush EO's this week that created yet another big government bureaucracy to dole out big tax dollars. The unusual twist to this one is that it is passing out those big bucks to religious groups. The liberals that see it as a government endorsement of religion are screaming about the separation of "church and state" and so are the ultra-conservative Christians that see it as a way for government to take control of the churches. Here at TCN we fall firmly into the latter group.
The catch to this system has been fought out in court. If the government funds something, they can set all of the standards any way they see fit. This may not be a major problem while Bush appointees are calling the shots according to his directives (though it might), but what about under Hillary's appointees in 2004?
The Federalist issued 2 memos in their Friday edition:
"Memo to ACLU minions upset about tax dollars going to "religious" institutions: "Separation of church and state" ain't in the Declaration, the Articles of Confederation or the U.S. Constitution. Thomas Jefferson's 1801 letter to the Danbury Baptists referred to the "wall of separation," but, according to the exhaustive research on that misunderstood letter by the curator of the National Archives, Jefferson never intended to strip the public square of religion.
Memo to faith-based organizations: Based on the history of community responsibilities that have been nationalized after becoming dependent on the central government's tax trough, it is yet to be seen if Mr. Bush's initiative will have in tow the same mandates that have rendered such services ineffective, if not counterproductive. There is a strong case to be made, according to the "law of unintended consequences," that government funding may ultimately undermine the effectiveness and legitimacy of community based services, as it has, notably, with "public" schools."
The point on education is one that is very applicable. At one time in this country education in almost all communities was carried out in and by the church. Then came government funding to increase the capabilities of these small schools. Then came government control. Then came teachers' unions and contributions to politicians. Then came a school system where politics and indoctrination is more important than academics. Then there was no more education; lots of dollars, lots of pay-offs, committees to study problems in the schools and photo-ops for politicians getting "first-hand information" in the schools, but no education. Allowing federal government dollars, or even local government dollars into the churches will produce the same systematic decay.
TCN Memo to Bush: Do the right thing. Stop this foolishness and save yourself the embarrassment and the tax payers the expense of the legal battles that will soon hit the courts over this. Keep the government out of the church. Withdraw the government from the welfare system altogether. Then close both the Health and Human Services Department and the Department of Education.
"Years ago I was in Chicago and a now-retired executive of Quaker Oats told me of the time that Jesse Jackson threatened his company with a boycott because, he claimed, Aunt Jemima was a racist symbol. My friend, the executive, was called in by his board to negotiate with Jackson. They went around and around and back and forth, with Jackson raising the stakes all along the line. Finally, my friend smelled a rat. He began to suggest that sizeable contributions to Jackson's Rainbow Coalition could be arranged from the Quaker Oats treasury. Suddenly Jackson's attitude changed. He was now open to reason.
"When they at last arrived at a price, why Jackson -- who only days earlier had denounced Aunt Jemima as a racist symbol -- held another press conference and said that upon reflection he had come to the conclusion that Aunt Jemima was really a cultural symbol and there would be no boycott of Quaker Oats. In short, he was paid off. Some might call it extortion. I am told by business executives with whom I have shared that story that he has pulled the same trick over and over and over again and that businesses all over the East Coast have rolled over and filled his treasury."
[ Paul Weyrich, Free Congress Foundation ]
In casting his vote to confirm John Ashcroft as attorney general, the dean of the U.S. Senate, West Virginia Democrat Robert Byrd not only defended President Bush's nomination of Ashcroft. He also said he hopes Bush will nominate conservative judges in the future. "I happen to be a senator who believes that when it comes to judges, they ought to be conservative," Byrd said in a statement printed in Wednesday's Congressional Record. "The president was elected as a conservative. He did not get my vote, but he was elected as a conservative. I think that when it comes to the appointment of federal judges, I hope he will nominate conservatives. That is what he ought to do. He told the people he was conservative, and they should expect that of him," Byrd said.
[ CNS ]
Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott said Tuesday that the Senate Judiciary Committee will probe the question of whether ex-President Clinton broke the law when he pardoned fugitive financier Marc Rich just hours before leaving office.
"The Judiciary Committee would ... just basically do our oversight work, see what happened, see if there was anything inappropriate or illegal involved, or do we need to change the law."
Lott has turned the Pardongate probe over to Sen. Arlen Specter, who said Wednesday that he may decide to call the ex-president to testify.
"It's a significant matter even to consider [calling Clinton] and I need to talk to my colleagues," the Pennsylvania Republican told the New York Post. The topic could come up as early as next Wednesday, when Specter is expected to convene a hearing.
The public interest law firm Judicial Watch has also entered the fray, filing a complaint with the Senate Ethics Committee against Sen. Hillary Clinton "for accepting apparent bribes in exchange for Presidential pardons issued by her husband. ..."
Mr. Rich's ex-wife Denise contributed over $1 million to Bill and Hillary Clinton as well as to other Democrats since 1993 and then personally lobbied the president for the pardon last fall.
On Tuesday Mrs. Clinton ended her weeklong silence on the Pardongate scandal, telling reporters that she had no input into her husband's decision on the matter.
"I have no opinion. I had no opinion before, I had no opinion at the time. I have no opinion now," she said.
A companion Pardongate probe is being led by House Government Reform and Oversight Committee chairman Dan Burton, who told Fox News Channel's "Hannity & Colmes" Wednesday night that the American people need to know the truth behind Clinton's decision.
Former New Jersey Supreme Court Judge Andrew Napolitano said Tuesday that Pardongate could land the ex-president in legal hot water.
"If a crime were committed by Bill Clinton and by Marc Rich - if Marc Rich indirectly bribed Bill Clinton to give him that pardon - then Bill Clinton can be indicted and prosecuted," he told Fox News Channel's Paula Zahn.
But, Napolitano added, proving a quid pro quo in the case would be extremely difficult.
[ NewsMax ]
Even Democrats don't object to various congressional probes into Bill Clinton's last-minute pardon of a man who may not have deserved a pardon at all.
The Senate Judiciary Committee this week said it will investigate Clinton's surprise pardon of wealthy fugitive Marc Rich. The House Government Reform Committee is conducting its own investigation.
Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle said Wednesday he has no strong objection, as long as the inquiry does not become "a partisan witch hunt."
Rich's ex-wife Denise, who lobbied for Marc's freedom, was a big contributor to the Clintons personally and to the Democratic Party in general, a fact that gives some people the impression that Clinton pardoned rich Marc Rich to "reward" rich Denise.
[ CNS ]
The homepage and archives for The Conservative Newsletter are located on the WWW at http://www.wilderness-cry.net/tcn/
This newsletter is sent by subscription only. If you do not wish to be on the mailing list, please let us know and you will be removed immediately. To be removed from this mailing list, simply reply to this newsletter with the word REMOVE in the body of your reply. You may also send your request to tcn@wilderness-cry.net .
Thank you.