Pulse Massacre Gunman’s Wife Knew of Plot

As USA Today is reporting, the tragic massacre at the Pulse night club could have been prevented had the wife of the gunman, Omar Mateen, had warned authorities of what her husband was planning to do.  Sometimes sins of omission are nearly as bad as sins of commission.  49 lives lost and dozens of other lives forever damaged all because she failed to do the right and moral thing.  Hopefully, her defense attorneys are not successful in alleging that she is innocent and she pays a severe penalty for what she knowingly allowed to happen.  Here are article highlights:

A handwritten statement given to the FBI by the wife of Pulse nightclub gunman Omar Mateen says she saw him prepare for the deadly attack for months and knew that the LGBT nightclub was his target. 

The 12-page statement, quietly released by federal authorities at the end of December in a batch of records in the case, was taken hours after the June 12, 2016 shooting. The attack left 49 dead and dozens of others injured. Noor Salman was questioned for hours, without a lawyer, after authorities learned her husband was the gunman behind the attack. 

She was arrested last year on federal charges of providing material support to a terrorist and tampering with evidence but has pleaded not guilty, claiming she was suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. She said Mateen abused her and claims she did not know of his plot.

But her defense conflicts with the signed statement she gave to the FBI, which details her knowledge of Mateen's planning and his path to carry out an attack on behalf of the Islamic State.

She told agents multiple times she knew his plans and that he was going to attack the Orlando club when he left their home.

She told agents she knew "my fears had come true and he did what he said he was going to do. I was in denial and I could not believe that the father of my child was going to hurt other people."

The statement includes that during a two-year span before the attack. Mateen would browse jihad websites almost everyday and frequently watch beheading videos. He was angry and frustrated about treatment of Muslims in the Middle East and talked about retaliating against Americans.

"He said if he did jihad everybody would know who he is," Salman wrote in the statement.

Salman's attorneys have been fighting against the use of the statement in court, claiming that she was in custody and had not been read her Miranda rights, according to the Orlando Sentinel. 

Prosecutors have said she was not under arrest and that all of her statements were voluntary, though she told agents several stories before writing the statement, which included an apology for lying to the FBI. 

Two days before the shooting, Salman saw Mateen looking at the website for the club. When she saw what he was doing, he said, "this is my target," the statement reads. 

Salman told FBI agents, "I knew that the time to attack the club was close."  The night before the attack, he left the house and looked "pumped up," she wrote in the statement, adding he told her, "This is the one day."

"I knew when he left the house he was going to Orlando to attack the Pulse nightclub," she wrote.

The larger issue, of course, is that pastors and mullahs are allowed to spew hatred towards others under the guise of "deeply held religious beliefs."  Worse yet, the organizations they represent typically enjoy tax exempt status, so every taxpayer is indirectly underwriting their messages of hate.   Personally, I believe that is time for churches and mosques to lose all tax exempt status. 

Bishop of Richmond Fires Assisted Living Home Director for Being Gay

Bishop DiLorenzo - anti-gay and anti-woman bigot who seems to have never missed a meal

I have noted before that Bishop Francis Xavier DiLorenzo of the Catholic Diocese of Richmond is a foul and nasty piece of work.  He is among the most reactionary appointments made by the late and anything but saintly John Paul II.   During his years in Honolulu where he served as bishop and since his installation as the Bishop of Richmond, DiLorenzo has demonstrated himself to be virulently anti-gay, anti-woman, and against any accommodation for divorced and remarried Catholics.  Whether these vicious tendencies arise from his own psycho-sexual issues or from the fact that he is a misogynist in general is anyone's guess.  Wikipedia has a good summary of DiLorenzo's reactionary and anti-women actions, as well as his long history of anti-gay efforts.  I know for a fact that he has blocked the hiring of an well qualified individual from a teaching position because the individual was divorced and remarried - the individual's spouse had come out as gay and hence the divorce - despite the desire of the school to hire the individual.  Now,  DiLorenzo has brought on a U.S. Equal Employment Commission complaint against the Richmond Diocese for the firing of the gay director of Saint Francis Home assisted living center.  ABC News and GayRVA are reporting on the firing which to me underscores the need to revoke the tax-exempt status of ALL religious institutions except those that are houses of worship.  Taxpayers should not be compelled to indirectly subsidize bigotry.  If church entities are forced out of business because they have lost the indirect public dole, so be it.  First, highlights from ABC News:

[John Murphy claims that Bishop DiLorenzo] forced his removal from the top job at a diocese-owned assisted living home because he's gay and married to his partner of 30 years.

John Murphy filed a discrimination claim against the Catholic Diocese of Richmond with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission last month. He said he served as executive director of the Saint Francis Home in Richmond for about a week before two deputies of Bishop Francis Xavier DiLorenzo told him that he was being fired because his marriage goes against church doctrine.

Murphy was terminated without severance pay and he and his husband, a retired clinical social worker, are relying primarily on Social Security benefits to get by, he said.

At least one board member has resigned out of frustration with the bishop's actions.

"I didn't want to be a part of that decision — not in this day and age," said Sam Dibert Sr., who had been vice president of the board and served on it for more than 20 years. Dibert said he didn't know that Murphy was gay until after he was hired, but it didn't affect his opinion of him or whether he thought he could do the job.

The board's president didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.

Dozens of openly gay employees at Catholic institutions in the U.S have reported losing their jobs since 2010 over their same-sex relationships or support for gay marriage and gay rights, according to New Ways Ministry, which advocates for gay and lesbian Catholics.

The Equal Opportunity Employment Commission ruled in July that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act — which bars employers from discriminating against someone because of their sex, race and religion — also prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

There is a religious exemption in the law, but it goes only so far as to allow organizations from refusing to hire people who aren't part of their religion, said Samuel Bagenstos, a professor at the University of Michigan who specializes in constitutional and civil rights law.

If the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission finds that Murphy was discriminated against, it will try to negotiate a settlement between the two sides. If it finds that there has been no discrimination or a settlement can't be reached, it will likely end up in federal court, where the potential outcome is unclear.

 GayRVA has additional details.  Here are highlights:

The former Executive Director of Saint Francis Home in Richmond, a nonprofit, assisted living facility for persons of limited financial means, was hired in March of this year and claims he had received praise for his handling of the job. But after filing his employee benefits paperwork, and marking the forms with his same-sex spouse, he found himself on the receiving end of a pink slip.

Murphy said he spoke with his employers before being hired, he mentioned his marriage and they told him it wouldn’t be a problem. But according to a press release by Equality Virginia, Virginia’s leading LGBTQ activist organization, when the Bishop of the Catholic Diocese of Richmond, Francis X. Di Lorenzo, noticed the same-sex relationship, he ordered the St. Francis Board to fire Murphy.

“I expect to be judged by my job performance, but I am appalled and deeply hurt that the Bishop of the church I grew up in would suddenly fire me solely because of the gender of the person I share my life with – a person to whom I am lawfully married according to the U.S. Supreme Court,” said Murphy in the EV statement. “It is shocking to me that this can happen in 2015 in America, and I fear for my financial survival if any employer can do this to me at any time.”

According to EV, the board unanimously refused, and some members resigned over the order. It took Bishop Di Lorenzo personally deputizing someone to go to Murphy’s house and fire him.

The state of Virginia lacks protections in employment based on sexual orientation, however a claim of sex discrimination can be filed with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The EEOC handles investigations into these claims, and can make decisions based on federal law.

The use of a sex discrimiantion claim is one used by a few LGBTQ Americans in recent years as it relates to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which prohibits discrimination by covered employers on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

DiLorenzo is a douche bag and is a prime example of why the Roman Catholic Church is losing members at an accelerating rate.  He also is a poster child for why the IRS needs to start revoking tax exempt status for so-called religious institutions that are not directly related t worship services.  The Founder never envisioned allowing schools, hospitals, and many other types of facilities getting a tax free ride at the expense of those targeted by religious based bigotry.   Sign the petition to force DiLorenzo to rescind Murphy's firing.

Federal Cout Throws Out Lawsuits by Tea Party Groups Against the IRS

Remember the hysteria in Teabagistan and among GOP political whores over the IRS's questioning or denial of far right groups seeking tax-exempt status, many under the guise of "educational" organizations even though the organizations' main goals was to either (i) engage in banned political activity and/or (ii) enrich the organizers (much like how Sarah Palin's PAC spends less than 6% of revenues on candidates).   Having filed numerous applications for non-profit clients for tax exempt status, the fury was always misguided, in my view.  The IRS always assumes that something is amiss and asks countless questions and/seeks further clarification even for organizations that ultimately gain tax exempt status.  Well, the IRS found away to turn the tables (at least for now) by granting the Tea Party organizations tax-exempt status.  The result?  Their lawsuits were thrown out and the IRS will still have the option of revoking their tax exempt status down the road when they violate the Internal Revenue Code and associated regulations.  Politico looks at the IRS's court win:

The IRS may have inadvertently figured out how to win its legal battles against aggrieved tea party groups: Give them what they wanted in the first place — tax-exempt status.

That was a major reason a Republican-appointed federal judge on Thursday threw out two lawsuits brought by more than 40 conservative groups seeking remedies for being singled out in the tea party targeting scandal, a victory for the IRS.

Judge Reggie Walton of the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia dismissed almost all counts brought against the tax-collecting agency in two cases, ruling that both were essentially moot now that the IRS granted the groups their tax-exempt status that had been held up for years.

Walton, a President George W. Bush-appointee, also said individual IRS officials could not be fined in their individual capacity for allowing such treatment because it could hurt future tax enforcement.

Republicans said they were outraged at Walton’s decision. . . . You get targeted and harassed for three years but, oh, because you finally get [tax-exempt status], the three years of harassment doesn’t mean anything?” asked Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), who heads a congressional subpanel investigating the controversy. “I find that argument lacking tremendously in light of what these people went through.” 

But others said the agency needs to do more — not less — to scrutinize nonprofit groups that don’t follow the rules and over-engage in political activities. To obtain the status in question, political activity must not be the groups’ primary activity — a vague and difficult-to-administer test.

“Judge Walton got it right — there is no ongoing injury to these groups,” said Paul S. Ryan, senior counsel at the Campaign Legal Center, which backs tighter rules on political nonprofits. “The IRS needs to enforce tax law with respect to nonprofit political groups more aggressively.”

Why Houston Subpoenaed Pastors’ Sermons

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) speaking at a rally in defense of the Houston pastors.

The hyperventilating among Christofascists over the decision of the City of Houston to subpoena the sermons of a small number of pastors seemingly knows no limits and one is hearing claims that it represents a war on Christians and rants about homo-fascists.  The real fascists, of course, are the Christofascists.  And then there's the real issue: whether or not these pastors were violating the laws that restrict the political activity of tax-exempt churches.  As noted countless times on this blog, the Christofascists believe they are above complying with the laws that govern the rest of us.  Think Progress looks at what is really behind the city of Houston's subpoenas.  Here are excerpts:

There has been a new clash this week in the fight over the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance (HERO), a law that would protect LGBT individuals and other targeted groups from discrimination. The latest hubbub involves the city subpoenaing five pastors for their sermons, which has prompted conservatives to claim that religious liberty is under attack and that the subpoenas are a form of intimidation.

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, was on Fox News last night claiming that Houston Mayor Annise Parker (D) is “taking a bulldozer to that wall of separation [of church and state]” and trying to “dictate what pastors preach.”

The Houston City Council approved HERO in May with a vote of 11-6. In addition to its inclusion of LGBT protections, it was actually the city’s first nondiscrimination bill protecting any classification, including race, sex, and religion. Houston was one of the only large cities in the country with no nondiscrimination policy on the books.

After the law passed, a coalition formed known as “No Unequal Rights,” spearheaded by local church groups like the Houston Area Pastor Council and Baptist Ministers Association of Houston. The anti-LGBT coalition began collecting signatures to challenge HERO with a referendum.

Enough of the pages were disqualified to bring the number of signatures below what was required, leading Feldman and Parker to announce that the petition effort had failed.  Opponents of the law responded by immediately filing a lawsuit against the city, demanding the referendum be placed on the ballot.

[T]he case largely hinges on the validity of the signatures and the process by which they were collected. A video posted by Equality Texas shortly after the suit was filed shows Pastor David Welch, director of the Houston Area Pastor Council, training signature collectors about the very city rules that Feldman used to disqualify entire pages of signatures. The subpoenas seek to collect additional information about how pastors like Welch communicated with their congregations about the petition process.

The subpoenas targeted five pastors in Houston: David Welch, Steve Riggle, Khan Huynh, Magda Hermida, and Hernan Castano. The requests seek documents related to the funding of the petition effort, t he training of petition circulators, and the messaging used to convince individuals to sign. What has particularly drawn conservative ire was the request for “All speeches, presentations, or sermons related to HERO, the Petition, Mayor Annise Parker, homosexuality, or gender identity prepared by, delivered by, revised by, or approved by you or in your possession.”

The fate of the subpoenas will ultimately be determined by the court. In the meantime, conservatives seem intent on using the controversy to spread myths about the petition, the implications of the subpoenas, and more of the same anti-LGBT rhetoric they used to unsuccessfully oppose HERO in the first place.

If these pastors and their churches were funding this petition effort, they have likely violated the provisions of Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code and should lose their tax exempt status.

The Secret Antigay U.S. Money Behind The Global Evangelical War on LGBT Rights

I and - others - increasingly believe that supposedly religious "charities" that blatantly violate the ban on political activities under the Internal Revenue Code need to lose their tax exempt status.  Many of the organizations under close analysis do little or no charitable work and instead funnel huge amounts of money into anti-gay (and sometimes anti-minority) political activities.  American taxpayers should not be forced to indirectly underwrite the activities of what are little more than hate groups.   The piece in TwoCare.org looks at the money flowing from supposed "Christian" charities to fund a global war against LGBT rights and which, in the process whip up hate and homophobia that often leans to anti-gay violence.  Pieces kike this one underscore why conservative "Christians" need to become social pariahs in America. They are anything but nice and decent people.  Their mindset is separated from ISIS only by the degree of violence they use on those who refuse to conform to the ugly version of religious belief.  Here are article highlights:

Note to readers: this is the first installment in a Twocare.org/Center Against Religious Extremism series that will examine extensive ties - both financial, organizational, and ideological - between the community of philanthropists, evangelical leaders, and Christian organizations that revolve around the event known as The Gathering and evangelical promotion of anti-gay hatred and anti-LGBT rights activism on a global scale, from Uganda to Russia.

"The Homosexual Agenda: Exposing the Principal Threat to Religious Freedom Today" (B&H Publishing Group, 2003), which states "[homosexual] activists have followed a strategy akin to what Hitler used back in the 1920s and 1930s to take over Germany” and is currently distributed by the Alliance Defending Freedom, one of the top American organizations participating in WCF events. The ADF is linked to anti-LGBT rights activism in nations spanning three continents, from the United States and Belize to Russia. In 2012, ADF received over 25% of its funding from the National Christian Foundation; . . . . .

A Twocare.org analysis shows that out of the 101-odd American speakers featured at major World Congress of Families congresses from WCF I, held in Prague in 1997, to WCF VI, held in Madrid in 2012, 48 of those speakers, almost half, were attached to organizations that have been funded by the National Christian Foundation, the biggest foundation at the yearly event known as The Gathering (featured in the April 2014 Twocare.org special report The Gathering: The Religious Right’s Cash Cow) – an event at which leaders of top Christian right anti-LGBT groups such as the Family Research Council, Focus on The Family, and the Alliance Defending Freedom (formerly the Alliance Defense Fund) frequently mingle with billionaire financiers of the religious right, representatives from the right-wing DeVos, Coors, Friess, Ahmanson, Prince, DeMoss, and MacLellan families and the rapidly growing National Christian Foundation – now America’s 12th biggest charity according to the Chronicle of Philanthropy and which funds multiple “ex-gay” ministries.

By its own description, the event known as The Gathering – whose attending nonprofit foundations give out, according to a Twocare.org analysis, over $1 billion dollars a year in grants – was launched in 1985 from a meeting at the Arlington, Virginia headquarters of The Fellowship, which hosts the annual National Prayer Breakfast.  

Speakers scheduled this year for The Gathering 2014 include NYT columnist David Brooks,  . . . . . Among those Joining Brooks at The Gathering 2014 will be Terry Parker, co-founder and board member of the National Christian Foundation, which since 2005 has given over $1.5 million dollars to the His Servants ministry of Don Schmierer, producer and vendor of a Fieldstead & Company-commissioned line of “ex-gay” books and curricula translated into dozens of languages . . . 

In 2006 Family Research Council head Tony Perkins told The Gathering that the “second greatest threat:” to America, besides “radical Islamists” was “radical homosexuals”. 

Despite ongoing critical media coverage of the World Congress of Families, that over the past decade has come to the fore as a leading U.S.-based initiative which has helped export the culture war agenda of the American religious right – including anti-LGBT hatred and hostility to reproductive freedoms – to Russia and Eastern Europe, one transcendent question has largely been neglected: who funds the American nonprofits that have comprised the dominant presence at WCF events ? And, are the efforts of these nonprofits uncoordinated or are there traceable strategic and leadership connections between these groups ?

The answer to both questions points directly to the elite annual event known as The Gathering and to its biggest nonprofit foundation, the National Christian Foundation, exposed in an ongoing Twocare.org investigation of NCF 990 tax forms from 2001-2012 as probably the biggest – and without a doubt the most prolific – anti-LGBT rights funder in America.

$10,065,726: that’s the amount of funding that the Alliance Defending Freedom – whose leaders have spoken at and helped organize four major World Congress of Families events, and is “easily the most active antigay legal group” according to Human Rights Campaign Vice President Frederick Sainz – received in 2012 from the National Christian Foundation . . . . 

Consider the following quotes, from the Alliance Defending Freedom’s top leaders: . . . . “[Homosexual] activists have followed a strategy akin to what Hitler used back in the 1920s and 1930s to take over Germany… The very future of our nation is at risk if the homosexual agenda continues to advance unchecked.” — from pages 27-28 of The Homosexual Agenda, a 2003 book by ADF President Alan Sears and Craig Osten currently offered for free by the ADF to contributors who donate over $10

[A]s detailed in the Twocare.org special report The Gathering: The Religious Right’s Cash Cow, from 2001-2012 the National Christian Foundation provided $163,384,988 in funding to the ADF, FoF, FRC, and five other major anti-LGBT rights activist groups: the Alliance For Marriage, the American Center For Law and Justice, the American Family Association, Campus Crusade For Christ, and the National Organization For Marriage.  

In a column in the Summer 2012 The Gathering newsletter, President of the 501(c)(3) nonprofit The Gathering Fred Smith discussed the results of a survey done by a private consultant hired to ask Gathering participants “what makes them reluctant to recommend people they meet to The Gathering.” More than a few participants, it seems based on Smith’s column, considered The Gathering to be a “secret society”. 

But judging by a survey of audio recordings from The Gathering, it is not hard to understand why participants might hold such a view; Gathering speakers often describe the need to “infiltrate” secular society: the use of stealth and deceit to further the dominionist “Seven Mountains” mandate, the goal of bringing the seven major spheres of society – government, business, education, media, arts and entertainment, religion, and the family – under the influence of control of “the kingdom” and its ranks of “believers”.

Such an anti-democratic and anti-pluralist, religious supremacist ethic – which has influenced disturbingly wide swaths of the global evangelical missions movement – is interwoven through the culture of The Gathering. 

There is more and readers should read the entire piece.  These organizations not only further a global war against LGBT individuals but ultimately, would overthrow the U.S. Constitution.  In my view, that is tantamount to treason and should be dealt with accordingly.  These are not decent organizations.  They and their agenda are frightening. 

"Christian" Pastor Call for Imprisonment of Gays

While we see the dangers of religious extremism in the Middle East, here at home in America almost everyone turns a blind eye to the pernicious hate and extremism that conservative Christianity  typifies.  Worse yet, Christianity continues to receive undeserved deference and all Americans are forced to subsidize religious crack pots and hate mongers through the tax-exemptions granted to religious organizations regardless of the poison that is there stock in trade.  Part of the problem, of course is the IRS's reluctance to enforce the Internal Revenue Code and withdraw tax exempt status to organizations that improperly engage in political activities be they the Roman Catholic Church, the Southern Baptist Convention, or the rag tag "ministries" set up as money making propaganda machines of the professional Christian crowd.   An example of such improper conduct is Pastor Michael V. Williams (pictured above) who is advocating for a constitutional amendment to impose 10 years imprisonment for gays.  The Raw Story looks at this batshitery that ought to prompt IRS action against this douche bag.  Here are highlights:

A pastor who uses his Internet platform to teach political lessons based on conservative Christian ideology has proposed a constitutional amendment to punish LGBT people for “ten years in prison at hard labor.”

In a video posted to his PreachingPolitics.com website last month that was flagged by the Good As You blog on Monday, Pastor Michael V. Williams asserts that Christians have been “increasingly tolerant” of gay people over the last 50 years.

“Whereas homosexuality used to be a felony in every state — referred to as sodomy — it has now been decriminalized, and homosexuality is allowed to be openly expressed in public,” he notes. “While Christians are becoming increasingly tolerant of homosexuals, homosexuals are becoming increasingly intolerant of us.”

“It’s time for Christians to resume obeying God and his word, and to re-criminalize homosexuality, outlaw it again,” the pastor continues. “The only way to do this and keep it beyond the reach of activist judges and unaccountable bureaucrats is to create a constitutional amendment.”

Williams’ proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution declares that the “United States of America is a Christian nation with Judeo-Christian ethics, morals, principles and values.”

And it decrees that the “practice of homosexuality in the United States of America and in all its territories and possessions, and in all its States, Counties and Cities shall be a felony punishable by ten years in prison at hard labor.”

Williams recommends that his viewers “incessantly” contact lawmakers until they agree to outlaw homosexuality. . . . only vote for those who promise to adopt this amendment.”

“We’re in a fight for survival and only one side can win,” the Internet preacher concludes. “Let’s make sure it’s our side.”

As I have said the only difference between American Christofascists and the members of ISIS is one  of degree and the level of violence they are willing to inflict against those with differing religious beliefs.  At the core, both groups are based on hate, the embrace of ignorance and extremism towards others.

Nancy Pelosi Urges Anti-Gay Archbishop to Boycott NOM's Hate March

The National Organization for Marriage has suffered one defeat after another as one federal court after another has struck don state bans on same sex marriage. Desperate to remain politically relevant - and more importantly to continue to fleece the ignorant and gullible - NOM has organized a so called "March for Marriage" in Washington, DC.   Among the scheduled speakers is San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone who some call the father of Proposition 8.  Cordileone has a history of vicious anti-gay activities and, candidly, his actions ought to be enough to have the IRS reevaluating the tax exempt status as a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization give the archdiocese's political activities which violate the ban on non-profits attempting to influence legislation.  Now, Nancy Pelosi, one of the most powerful Catholic politicians is urging Cordileone to stay clear of NOM's coven of hate merchants.  Here are highlights from the San Francisco Chronicle:

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi took the lead this week in a high-profile lobbying effort to pressure San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone not to attend the controversial March for Marriage event, which she characterized as "venom masquerading as virtue." 

Pelosi, who is one of the country's most powerful Catholic politicians, made a passionate appeal to the archbishop in a letter obtained by The Chronicle not to participate in the National Organization for Marriage's June 19 march on the Supreme Court in Washington.

Cordileone, who is one of the featured speakers at the event, was a leader in the campaign for Proposition 8, the 2008 California anti-gay-marriage initiative.

She urged him to abandon an event in which some of the participants show "disdain and hate towards LGBT persons."

The goal of the second annual March for Marriage is to draw thousands of supporters of what they call "traditional marriage" to walk from the U.S Capitol to the Supreme Court. Conservative former presidential candidates Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum, as well as Cordileone, are being billed as the star speakers.

The San Francisco Democratic leader is the most influential in a parade of public figures who have come forward to protest the San Francisco archbishop's participation in an event that is also backed by the Family Research Council. Critics have called the organizers "hate groups" that are targeting gays and lesbians.

Cordileone has publicly defended next week's March for Marriage as "an important means to promote and defend marriage for the good of our culture, to pray for our federal and state governments, and to stand in solidarity with people of good will."

Last week, San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee and Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, along with a host of Bay Area religious leaders, sent a joint letter to Cordileone. 

As noted, it is long past time that the IRS begin revoking the tax exempt status of churches that seek to meddle in the civil laws and/or support GOP politicians.  Cordileone needs to immediately receive an letter from the IRS indicated that the Service is commencing action to revoke the tax exempt status of the San Francisco Archdiocese and that Cordileone can expect a very large tax bill.  For good measure, the City of San Francisco needs to hit up the Archdiocese with real estate tax bills and, better yet, commence tax sales of Church properties if the bills are not promptly paid.  It is far past time that average Americans ceasing being forced to indirectly subsidize nasty organizations such as the Roman Catholic Church.

 

A Look At the Dueling Amicus Briefs in the Oklahoma And Utah Marriage Appeals

10th Circuit Court of Appeals

With both the Oklahoma and Utah rulings that struck down those states' respective bans on same sex marriage, those filing amicus  - i.e. "friends of the court - briefs has been sky rocketing.  What is ironic or disgusting depending on one's perspective is that some of the groups filing briefs to influence legislation and legal rulings operate under "charitable" non-profit status.  Section 503(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code bars this precise type of conduct. Where is the IRS in revoking the tax exempt status of these organizations. The Oklahoman has a summary of some of the amicus filings.  Note how the "godly folk"a and their political whores in the GOP always allege that gay marriage will lead to recognition of polygamy and/or incest based relationships. It is also distressing that Paul Cameron's thoroughly discredited organization was allowed to file an amicus brief.  Here are excerpts:

The nation’s deep divisions over same-sex marriage found expression in a flood of briefs filed recently with the federal appeals court considering the constitutionality of states bans in Oklahoma and Utah.

Leaders of major businesses and religious denominations weighed in, along with psychologists, scholars of the law and history, political figures, state attorneys general, families of gays and lesbians and special interest groups on both sides of the issue.

In all, more than 50 friend-of-the-court briefs sought to persuade judges in the Oklahoma and Utah cases on various aspects of the same-sex marriage issue.

The Oklahoma and Utah decisions turned on the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection under the law; the Utah judge also found violations of the amendment’s due process guarantee.
In their briefs, legal scholars and attorneys general focused on the 14th Amendment issues and the approach appeals court judges should take to the question of whether states can restrict marriage to heterosexual couples.

Briefs were filed by groups arguing over whether homosexuality is a characteristic that can be changed. That could be relevant if judges consider whether to give homosexuals the same level of protection given to racial minorities.

Arguments filed by faith groups about the religious traditions of marriage and whether one church or another would perform same-sex marriage have no bearing on state laws guiding the issuance of marriage licenses. Likewise, a brief filed by some of the nation’s largest businesses barely touched on the legal issues at hand. Still, the briefs from the groups showed the philosophical, moral and economic divisions among various segments of U.S. society.

Here are excerpts from briefs filed supporting Tulsa County Court Clerk Sally Howe Smith and the state of Utah:

Catholic Bishops, Southern Baptists, Mormons, Evangelicals and other faiths: “A common theme has arisen among advocates for redefining marriage to include same-sex couples: that those who oppose them must be irrational or even bigoted — that they are motivated by ‘antigay animus,’ whether in the form of unthinking ignorance or actual hostility. Such aspersions, which take various forms, are often cast at people and institutions of faith.

“The accusation is false and offensive. It is intended to suppress rational dialogue and democratic conversation, to win by insult and intimidation rather than by reason, experience, and fact. In truth, we support the husband-wife definition of marriage because we believe it is right and good for children, families, and society.”

Attorneys General for Oklahoma, Indiana, Colorado, Nebraska and six other states: “If the desire for social recognition and validation of self-defined ‘intimate’ relationships are the bases for civil marriage, no adult relationships can be excluded ... from making claims upon the government for recognition.

“A variety of platonic relationships — even those that if sexual in nature could plainly be prohibited, such as incestuous or kinship relationships — could qualify on equal terms with sexual relationships. A brother and sister, a father and daughter, an aunt and nephew, business partners, or simply two friends could decide to live with each other and form a ‘family’ based on their ‘intimate and sustaining emotional bond,’ even if not sexual in nature — indeed especially if not sexual in nature — and demand recognition as a ‘marriage.’”

National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality:

“Given the significant scientifically sound data showing that non-heterosexual identities are subject to significant change and certainly not immutable, the district court’s notion that homosexuality is a fixed trait was misguided.

“Additionally, the substantially negative outcome associated with homosexual behavior and identity reveal that changes in social and legal policy concerning same-sex marriage are not merited and should be rejected.”

The American Leadership Fund and 19 professors of history and related disciplines: “Since before recorded history, societies have sought to protect, support, and foster a lasting physical, emotional, and spiritual bond between a man and woman called marriage because, in most instances, children result from such relationships ... The question is not whether two or more adults of the same sex may live together and have sexual relationships. The question is whether a state must be coerced to call and recognize such a relationship as a ‘marriage.’”

Here are excerpts from briefs filed on behalf of Oklahoma and Utah same-sex couples wishing to marry or have their out-of-state marriages recognized:

Churches and faith leaders from Oklahoma and Utah, including: the First Unitarian Church of Oklahoma City; St. Stephens United Methodist Church of Norman; and Trinity Christian Church of Edmond:
 The religious freedoms embodied in the Constitution guarantee that diverse religious traditions and beliefs, including the sole right to define who can marry religiously, will flourish regardless of changes in civil marriage laws.”

Attorneys General for California, New York and 13 other states and the District of Columbia: “Today, marriage serves as a basic building block of society. Among other things, it helps create economic and health benefits, stabilize households, form legal bonds between parents and children, assign dependents’ care providers, and facilitate property ownership and inheritance.

“Marriage thus provides stability for individuals, families, and the broader community. States therefore encourage marriages, regardless of whether they result in children, because these private relationships assist in maintaining public order. All of these interests are furthered by including same-sex couples.”

American Sociological Association: “The social science consensus is both conclusive and clear: children fare just as well when they are raised by same-sex parents as when they are raised by different-sex parents … The research supports the conclusion that extension of marriage rights to same-sex couples has the potential to improve child wellbeing insofar as the institution of marriage may provide social and legal support to families and enhances family stability, which are key drivers of positive child outcomes.”
 
Google, Facebook, Starbucks, Pfizer and several other businesses:
“In states like Utah, Oklahoma, and others where marriage to a partner of the same-sex is prohibited, same-sex couples in committed relationships have no access to the myriad federal rights, benefits and privileges that depend on marriage unless they leave the state and are legally wed elsewhere.

“And even then, those same couples — or legally married same-sex couples who later move to Utah or Oklahoma — will still be denied access to the wide range of state benefits and mutual responsibilities available to married partners of different sexes. That bar works to the detriment of employees, and to employers that seek to recruit and retain the best human capital.”

Religious belief and the bigotry that has flowed from it for centuries has no place in the nation's civil laws.  One can only hope that the 10th Circuit quotes past U.S. Supreme Court rulings that have religious belief as a basis for discriminatory laws kicks the Christofascists and their political whores to the curb where they belong.

 

Virginia Senate Democrats Announce Push to Expand Gay Rights

If there was any question as to which of the two main political parties supports equality for gay Virginians and which one wants to keep gays inferior - if not outright criminalized - this session of the Virginia General Assembly should make the contrast between the Democrats and the GOP crystal clear.  As Virginia Senate Democrats announce a push for making Virginia less vitriolically anti-gay, over in the GOP controlled House of Delegates anti-gay Republicans are stating that they will kill any effort to begin the repeal of the Marshall-Newman Amendment this legislative session.  The Richmond Times Dispatch looks at the announced Democrat initiative.  Here are highlights:

Just two days after fellow party members were installed as governor, lieutenant governor and attorney general, Virginia Senate Democrats unveiled a legislative agenda to expand gay rights in the commonwealth.

Proposed legislation would codify nondiscrimination laws protecting gays in the state workforce, and allow public colleges, universities and localities to extend benefits to same-sex partners.

Lawmakers also propose an amendment to the Virginia Constitution that would repeal the 2006 Marshall-Newman amendment. It underpins Virginia's ban on same-sex marriages.

“Clearly the tide of history is on our side, the moral arc of the universe is bending in our direction,” Sen. A. Donald McEachin, D-Henrico told reporters at a news conference at the Capitol announcing what the caucus termed its “Equality Plan.”

McEachin's Senate Bill 248 would codify the executive order new Gov. Terry McAuliffe signed on Saturday providing workplace protections. Senate Bill 252 would allow partners benefits to public employees.

The senator said 21 states have employment discrimination protection for gays, a position endorsed by the Northern Virginia Technology Council.

Sen. Adam Ebbin, D-Alexandria, announced SJ1, which would repeal the marriage amendment passed in 2006 by Del. Robert G. Marshall, R-Prince William and Sen. Stephen Newman, R-Lynchburg.  “Our marriage laws are becoming more antiquated every day,” said Ebbin, who described the current amendment regulating marriage as between a man and a woman, a “stain” on the constitution at odds with federal laws and the policies of neighbors like Maryland and the District of Columbia.

Making history this legislative session, however, is likely to be extremely difficult. A 2-1 Republican majority in the House of Delegates presents steadfast opposition to much of the agenda the Democrats announced Monday.

Several children wearing badges identifying themselves as members of the socially conservative Family Foundation, which opposes gay marriage, occupied seats at the news conference.

Passage of the some of the proposed legislation in the Virginia Senate, however, could put pressure on House members to cast votes in committee against bills for which a majority of Virginians have indicated support in surveys.

Two things outside the legislative realm would help further gay rights in Virginia: (i) the Southern Poverty Law Center needs to designate The Family Foundation as a hate group and (ii) the IRS needs to revoke The Family Foundation's tax exempt status.  The Family Foundation is 100% involved in politics and advocates for and against legislation - something forbidden by the Internal Revenue Code.

Money and Self-Enrichment - The Real Motivation of "Family Values" Groups

There's more behind the agenda of "family values" groups and organizations besides bashing gays and disenfranchising blacks and other minorities so as to maintain white privilege.  And, yes, they want to maintain a pre-modern world and society in many other ways as well.  But the real motivation for many of the leaders of such groups is money.  Cold hard cash.  They live the good life while duping the gullible and ignorant like slick con artists and peddling hate and bigotry.  What's even more disgusting is that many of these groups purport to be "educational" in their efforts and shockingly hold tax-exempt status which significantly ups the gravy train for their leaders.  Brian Brown and Maggie Gallagher have made out like bandits at the National Organization for Marriage, locally, Pat Robertson has made many millions of dollars, Catholic League blow hard Bill Donohue reportedly makes between $350,000 and a cool half million a year.  The list goes on and on.  To show how the system is milked, Think Progress has done a review of how the Joseph Goebbels like Gary Bauer (pictured above) has lived well while peddling "family values" hate.  Here are highlights:

Gary Bauer has been one of the nation’s most visible and outspoken social conservatives since his work in the Reagan Administration — fighting against LGBT equality, pushing to restrict women’s reproductive rights, and promoting Islamophobia. But while the former Republican presidential hopeful’s myriad political organizations and tax-exempt groups claim to support conservative values, a ThinkProgress analysis suggests that of late he uses them primarily to funnel money into his own pockets.

As president of American Values, a tax-exempt 501(c)(3) “charitable” organization focused on “defending life, traditional marriage and equipping our children with the values necessary to stand against liberal education and cultural forces,” Bauer received an annual salary of about $120,000 in 2011 — and another $30,000 in other benefits. His wife Carol, who worked 10 hours a week as secretary/treasurer for the organization, received an additional $60,000 in annual compensation for her efforts.

But Bauer augmented this . . . .  by hiring himself as a “consultant” for the various political committees he controlled.   . . . . With hundreds of thousands left in the bank, Bauer hired a campaign strategy and communications consultant: Gary Bauer. In the 2005-2006 cycle, he took $40,000 in fees; in recent years his figure has risen to $3,000 a month. So far, Americans United to Preserve Marriage has paid Bauer more than $260,000 — and between 2009 and 2012, Bauer received more than half of the committee’s total spending.

Finally, Bauer turned to his oldest available account for his most lucrative work.  . . . . starting in March, Bauer began paying himself $13,750 a month for “political and admin” consulting — $68,750 over the past five months, and several times more than the $8,250 the committee has given, total, to federal political candidates so far this year. At these rates, his annual consulting fees for these committees would project to more than $200,000. This would be in addition to his full-time American Values job . . .

As I said, spreading hate, lies and bigotry can be very, very lucrative as financially stretched widows and ignorant individuals are fleeced of money that cannot afford to be giving away to charlatans like Bauer et al.  The IRS truly needs to revoke the tax exempt status of these scam operations.

Why Should Religious Groups Be Allowed To Discriminate?

 

I often complain about the undue deference and respect given to religion, particularly Christianity in America.  Yes, some religious organizations provide charitable works, but overall, the hallmarks of religion are division, discrimination and outright hatred.  Nowhere is this better seen than among supposed religious organizations the claim to support "family values."  Check out their websites.  The veritably drip with hatred and discrimination.  Yet time and time again these organizations enjoy tax exempt status and are allowed to ignore non-discrimination laws.  A piece in Think Progress rightly asks why is this allowed.  Here are article highlights:

Nationwide employment protections for the LGBT community still do not exist; in more than half the country people can be fired for their sexual orientation or gender identity — and they have been. It’s an issue of paramount importance to the community itself, which is why passing the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) continues to be a top priority for the LGBT movment. ENDA, as written, is not perfect though, particularly because of its language creating exemptions for religious organizations.

During a “Situation Room” to discuss ENDA’s fate on Thursday, a heated debate took place about these broad religious exemptions and whether they’re necessary for the bill to pass. What’s most problematic is how much further they go than the protections found in Title VII, which includes protections based on race, gender, and national origin. In fact, the only exemptions Title VII offers is permission for religious organizations to discriminate “with respect to the employment of individuals of a particular religion,” allowing that belonging to a particular religion is a qualification for such jobs. Religious schools are similarly allowed “to hire and employ employees of a particular religion” if the religion directly manages the school or if its curriculum is “directed toward the propagation of a particular religion.”

Otherwise, the rest of Title VII applies. Thus, religious organizations are not exempt from the protections for race, sex, and national origin. However, under ENDA, as currently proposed, religious organizations would be free to discriminate based on sexual orientation and gender identity all that they wish. Here’s what ENDA’s exemption looks like:

This Act shall not apply to a corporation, association, educational institution or institution of learning, or society that is exempt from the religious discrimination provisions of title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

So, any organization that was free to discriminate based on religion would be free to discriminate against LGBT people too, but that means that this exemption would actually be even broader. Title VII’s religious exemption limits discrimination to employees who “perform work connected with the carrying on” of its religious activities. What ENDA proposes, however, is that the LGBT protections would not apply to any organization who might even qualify for Title VII’s exemption — for any of its employees.

What’s telling though is that religious conservatives seek to justify anti-LGBT discrimination even without religious grounds to do so. For example, the Family Research Council has argued that even totally non-religious businesses should be able to fire transgender people just because they might make customers or other employees “uncomfortable.” Transgender people have already found relief under Title VII’s sex protections, but FRC’s point is still revealing. Rather than being about protecting “religious freedom,” the bill instead becomes a license to discriminate for all religious entities.

The broad exemption’s inclusion is a concession that discrimination against LGBT people is still justified and that the myths about LGBT identities that some religious people hold — such as that being gay is a choice and can be “fixed” by therapy — have merit.  . . . . ENDA as written would allow a chosen religious identity to trump an inherent sexual orientation or gender identity, guaranteeing in law that LGBT people are still second-class citizens.

My view?  First, end tax exempt status for ALL religious organizations be they churches or schools or other institutions.  Second, outside of actual church bodies and worship services, the non-discrimination laws should apply across the board to all religious organizations.  Religion has had its day and the fruits are hate, bigotry, wars and violence against others.  The world would be better without it.  

Why We Should Be Taxing Churches

A piece in Slate makes a good case for why we should be taxing churches - all of them.  To the list of taxed organizations should be added in my opinion all of the quasi-religious organizations such as NOM, FRC, AFA, etc. , which are nothing more than propaganda organizations for extreme religious beliefs and which actively work against the rights and well being of other citizens.  Some might say that churches provide charitable relief to the poor and so forth.  If they can document these efforts, give them an exemption for funds actually spent on these endeavors but not on lavish church buildings and activities that do nothing to further the general welfare.  Here are highlights from the piece:

Amelia Thomson-Deveaux has a great piece about religious groups that are trying to remove restrictions on church-based electioneering. She suggests that rather than gutting the rules, there's a simple fix, "Religious leaders who want the liberty to endorse candidates can give up their churches’ tax deduction."

I would go one further. Let's tax churches! All of them, in a non-discriminatory way that doesn't consider faith or creed or level of political engagement. There's simply no good reason to be giving large tax subsidies to the Church of Scientology or the Diocese of San Diego or Temple Rodef Shalom in Virginia or the John Wesley African Methodist Episcopal Zion church around the corner from me. Whichever faith you think is the one true faith, it's undeniable that the majority of this church-spending is going to support false doctrines. Under the circumstances, tax subsidies for religion are highly inefficient.

What's more, even insofar as tax subsidies do target the true faith they're still a pretty bad idea. The basic problem with subsidized religion is that there's no reason to believe that religion-related expenditures enhance productivity.
Upgrading a church's physical plant doesn't enhance the soul-saving capacity of its clergy. You just get a nicer building or a grander Christmas pageant. There's nothing wrong with that. When I was young I always enjoyed the Grace Church Christmas pageant. But this is just a kind of private entertainment (comparable to spending money on snacks for your book club—and indeed what are Bible study groups but the original book clubs?) that doesn't need an implicit subsidiy.

Meanwhile, nobody thinks churches and other religious institutions should silence themselves on the important issues of the day. On the contrary, discussing moral action is at the heart of many religious enterprises. And much moral action plays itself out in the arena of politics. So trying to say that churches should get subsidy when they don't endorse candidates is de facto a kind of subsidy to religious doctrines whose views happen to lack strong partisan implications. So if your faith says "abortion should be illegal and spending on the poor should be increased and it's too bad neither candidate supports that" you're golden, but if your faith says "abortion should be legal and spending on the poor should be increased so good for Barack Obama" suddenly you're in trouble. That's perverse. Just make everyone pay taxes.

Yes, taxing churches would put some parishes and congregations out of business.   But why should I be indirectly subsidizing a religion that hates me or teaches in my opinion false views and lies?  Put churches out in the market place and let them compete like every other business - religion is, in truth big business, just look at Pat Robertson and the many sleazy televangelists who fleece people via cable TV on a weekly basis. If their "product" sells, they will survive.  If not, then they can end up on the trash heap of history.

California Moves to Revoke Boy Scouts' Tax-Exempt Status

The recent decision by the Boy Scouts of America to allow gay scouts but to throw them out once they reach age 18  continues to elicit sharp responses, especially from hate driven conservative religious denominations which are threatening withdraw support for local packs and dens.  To be a godly Christian is, after all, all about hating others.  The California Assembly is taking a very different approach: a bill is progressing that would wipe out the Boy Scouts' (and other discriminatory groups) tax exempt status under California law.  The concept is simple: if a group discriminate against citizens , then it will not receive indirect support by all taxpayers via tax exempt status.  Frontiers LA reports on the legislative reaction.  Here are excerpts:

Sour reactions continue in response to last week’s split decision by the Boy Scouts of America to end their ban on gay youth participating in the organization but ejecting youth once they turn 18 and denying participation by gay adults and parents. This may be the first time, however, that a state legislative body has reacted so strongly – with the California Senate passing The Youth Equality Act (SB 323) by a whopping vote of 27-9. It’s the first time in California history that an LGBT rights bill has passed with a two-thirds majority.

SB 323, authored by openly gay Sen. Ricardo Lara (D-Long Beach)   and sponsored by Equality California, would require that youth groups that enjoy state tax exemptions, such as the BSA , also follow state non-discrimination laws. If youth groups - even nonprofit private organizations - elect to continue to discriminate, SB 323 would disallow tax exemption for sales and use taxes, as well as corporate taxes, to bring them in line with California law.

“While the Boy Scouts of America took a step in the right direction to include LGBT youth, the standing ban on LGBT adults is premised on absurd assumptions and stereotypes that perpetuate homophobia and ignorance,” Lara said in a press release.

Karen England, Executive Director of the antigay Capitol Resource Institute, was not happy.  

Lara opened his roughly six and a half minute speech on the Senate floor with the Boy Scout pledge and then noted that neither the Girl Scouts, nor the 4-H clubs, nor the Boys & Girls of America nor the YMCA discriminate against gay kids, making them eligible for tax-exemption. The BSA, however, “is an organization with the central flaw so profound that until it is fully fixed, it means that they are out of line with the values of California and should be ineligible for a tax benefit paid for again by all Californians…”

EQCA notes that SB 323 is an ideal bill for exporting to other states and municipalities, pointing out that last week a New York senator introduced similar legislation that would deny tax exempt status to all youth groups that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or other defining characteristics.

The approach needs to go nationwide.  Its a very positive step in ending the special rights and privileges long afforded Christofascist organizations.  These groups should not be above the law.  Moreover, taxpayers should not be forced to underwrite the activities of groups that have hate and discrimination as one of their core characteristics.

Groups Targeted by I.R.S. Tested Rules on Political Activities

The far right and the Congressional Republicans have been whining and belly aching over the IRS's review of conservative political organizations trying to secure tax exempt status so that all of us could indirectly subsidize the groups' political activities.  What these folks haven't been talking about is the fact that many of these groups deserved strict scrutiny because their own filings suggested impermissible activities under the IRS Code and regulations.  Having assisted numerous clients with their applications for tax exempt status, if you describe certain types of activities among the entity's purposes, you WILL get targeted for increased scrutiny.  A piece in the New York Times looks at what is being said now about some of the filings in question and why they deserved stricter scrutiny.  Here are excerpts:

When CVFC, a conservative veterans’ group in California, applied for tax-exempt status with the Internal Revenue Service, its biggest expenditure that year was several thousand dollars in radio ads backing a Republican candidate for Congress.

The Wetumpka Tea Party, from Alabama, sponsored training for a get-out-the-vote initiative dedicated to the “defeat of President Barack Obama” while the I.R.S. was weighing its application.

And the head of the Ohio Liberty Coalition, whose application languished with the I.R.S. for more than two years, sent out e-mails to members about Mitt Romney campaign events and organized members to distribute Mr. Romney’s presidential campaign literature. 

Representatives of these organizations have cried foul in recent weeks about their treatment by the I.R.S., saying they were among dozens of conservative groups unfairly targeted by the agency, harassed with inappropriate questionnaires and put off for months or years as the agency delayed decisions on their applications. 

But a close examination of these groups and others reveals an array of election activities that tax experts and former I.R.S. officials said would provide a legitimate basis for flagging them for closer review.

“While some of the I.R.S. questions may have been overbroad, you can look at some of these groups and understand why these questions were being asked.”  

The I.R.S. is already separately reviewing roughly 300 tax-exempt groups that may have engaged in improper campaign activity in past years, according to agency planning documents. Some election lawyers said they believed a wave of lawsuits against the I.R.S. and intensifying Congressional criticism of its handling of applications were intended in part to derail those audits, giving political nonprofit organizations a freer hand during the 2014 campaign. 

The New York Times examined more than a dozen of the organizations, most of them organized as 501(c)(4) “social welfare” groups under the tax code, or in some cases as 501(c)(3) charities. None ran major election advertising campaigns  .  .  .  .  some organized volunteers, distributed pamphlets and held rallies leading up to the 2010 elections or the 2012 presidential election, as conservatives fought to turn out Mr. Obama.

I.R.S. agents are obligated to determine whether a 501(c)(4) group is primarily promoting “social welfare.” While such groups are permitted some election involvement, it cannot be an organization’s primary activity. That judgment does not hinge strictly on the proportion of funds a group spends on campaign ads, but on an amorphous mix of facts and circumstances.  “If you have a thousand volunteer hours and only spend a dollar, but those volunteers are to help a particular candidate, that’s a problem,” Mr. Tobin said. 

At least some of the conservative groups that are complaining about I.R.S. treatment were clearly involved in election activities on behalf of Republicans or against Democrats.  

Some groups appeared to be confused or misinformed about the I.R.S. rules applying to their activity.

Tom Zawistowski, president of the Ohio Liberty Coalition, another Tea Party group that has complained about the scrutiny it received from the I.R.S., sent out regular e-mails to members about Romney campaign events and organized protests around the state to “demand the truth about Benghazi” when Mr. Obama visited before the 2012 election. The coalition also canvassed neighborhoods, handing out Romney campaign “door hangers,” Mr. Zawistowski said.

In short, many of these groups WERE political organizations that not only deserved scrutiny but also deserved to have their applications denied.  Either some of these groups were headed up by cretins - a distinct possibility given the GOP's open embrace of ignorance - or they were trying to flout the law.   Either way, I have little sympathy for their crocodile tears.

NARTH - A Leading "Ex-Gay" Proponent - Loses Its Tax Exempt Status

One of the principal manufacturers of the fraudulent "research" and "expert testimony" to support the lie that gays can "change" their sexual orientation and that, therefore, being gay is a "choice" is the National Association for the Research and Therapy of Homosexuality ("NARTH").   Happily, as Warren Throckmorton reports, NARTH has had its tax-exempt status revoked by the IRS for failure to file file IRS Form 990 for three consecutive years.  One can only speculate as to why the required filings were not made, but among the possibilities is the fact that NARTH may have been seeking to hide the source(s) of its funding - much as has been witnessed with the National Organization for Marriage ("NOM") which many suspect is a front for the Roman Catholic Church.  In the case of NARTH, financial supporters are likely to comprise a who's who of anti-gay Christofascst organizations.  Here are highlights from Throckmorton's blog:

In September 2012, the tax exempt status of the National Association for the Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) was revoked due to failure to file Form 990 for three consecutive years. The notice of revocation was yesterday according to the IRS website.

Even though the full name of the organization is not listed, the Employee Identification Number and address match up with the 2009 990 form. A call to the IRS also confirmed it.

NARTH’s website advises prospective donors that their donations will be tax deductible but it appears such deductions after September 15, 2012 may not be allowed.

It is difficult to know what this means. NARTH has never been a wealthy organization and conference attendance has declined in recent years. Members are hoping to maintain their ability to conduct reparative therapy with minors in CA via lawsuits against the state to overturn SB 1172 (see this article for more on SB 1172 and then NARTH’s perspective). NARTH has been actively soliciting donations to help support their legal actions. One would not be able to tell from the website that those donations are not deductible.

Click image to enlarge

IRS Asked to Investigate Illegal Activities of Catholic Bishops

Norfolk priest who is crossing the line on allowed activities of 501(c)(3) charities

In a move that is long overdue given the huge amounts of money being spent by the Roman Catholic Church to influence legislation and advocate against Democrats - all of which is forbidden conduct for supposed charities enjoying tax exempt status under Section 501(c)(3) the Internal Revenue Code -  Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington wants the federal Internal Revenue Service to investigate the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops for allegedly engaging in prohibited political activity in violation of its protected tax status.  If you want to hurt the bishops where it really counts other than jailing them for obstruction of justice in the cover ups of sexual abuse by priest, hit them in the pocket book.  Money is, after all, the true god.  The Wisconsin Gazette looks at this welcomed action.  Here are article highlights:

The complaint filed recently notes press reports indicating a number of bishops are using their positions to advocate against the re-election of President Barack Obama and sermons this weekend likely will involve other political activity.

CREW says that in Illinois, Bishop Daniel Jenky, who has compared Obama to Josef Stalin and Adolf Hitler, is requiring priests in his diocese to read a statement accusing the Obama administration of an "assault upon our religious freedom simply without precedent in the American political and legal system." Jenky says that Catholic voters who fail to heed his warning have no hope of salvation.

Said CREW executive director Melanie Sloan in a news release, "This weekend, the Catholic bishops plan to use every tool in their arsenal, including warning parishioners that they may go to hell, to promote the candidacy of Gov. Mitt Romney. While the bishops are free to hold their own opinions, tax law is clear that this sort of political activity is prohibited."

The group, in its complaint, also raised concerns about the political activity of Nicholas Di Marzio in New York, David Ricken in Wisconsin, Edward J. Burns in Alaska and Paul Loverde in Virginia.

To qualify for tax exemption under IRC 501(c)(3), an organization must not participate or intervene in any political campaign on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office. The publication or distribution of written or printed statements on behalf of or in opposition to a candidate is also prohibited. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, as a 501(c)(3) group, and, according to CREW, "is clearly prohibited from opposing a candidate as it is clearly doing with its presidential election." 

Sloan continued, "In completely unqualified terms, the IRS should immediately tell the Conference of Catholic Bishops that the conduct of its members is beyond the pale. If the Catholic bishops would like to continue receiving the tremendous tax benefits on which they rely, they should follow U.S. law and stay out of American politics."

I would hope complaints will also be filled against individual parishes with priests who see themselves as above law such as Holy Trinity in Norfolk.  Sadly, the actions of these bishops (and priests) is yet another example of how the Catholic clergy and the Catholic Church hierarchy as a whole arrogantly think them selves above the law be it through abetting and covering up for child rapists or blatantly violating the tax laws.  All deference and special rights need to cease and violations need to be criminally prosecuted where applicable