Rand Paul - Potential 2016 Presidential Bid

I would oppose a liberal "gun control" lobby misreprenting itself as a non profit charitable organization equally.

Why do people make such idiotic assumptions.

Political campaigning should be completely removed from "charitable" organization status. As noted there are organizations trying to hide their political donors as well as providing tax deductable status for political donations by becoming 501(c) tax entities. I don't care if they're liberal, conservative or libertarian this practice needs to be STOPPED.

When a "charitable organization" attempts to influence the political process they should be stripped of their 501(c) status immediately. There should be no "ifs, ands, or buts" related to this and I don't give a hoot who does it.

As noted the "Tea Party" and pseudo "Patriot" organizations were NOT restricted related to their participation in the 2012 elections and the claim that they were is nothing but a blatant lie. If they had filed for a 5011(c) exemption they should have had the 501(c) tax status denied but they were never prohibited from participating. As noted the same would be true for a liberal gun control lobby participating in election advertizing. These are PAC's and we have laws related to PAC's. Let's enforce the PAC laws!!!

 

You first need to read up and study the difference between a 501(c)(3) and a 501(c)(4). You are lumping it all together. They are both not-for-profit, but have some huge differences.

A 501(c)(3) is for charitable organizations. The donations made to that one can be taken off the tax return of those doing the donating. That's also why we get to know the names of those who donated.

A 501(c)(4) is for social welfare. The donations made to that one cannot be taken off the tax return of those doing the donating. That's why we don't get the names of those donating; because they didn't receive any tax benefit from their donation.
And direct from the IRS website:

"The promotion of social welfare does not include direct or indirect participation or intervention in political campaigns on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office. However, a section 501(c)(4) social welfare organization may engage in some political activities, so long as that is not its primary activity. However, any expenditure it makes for political activities may be subject to tax under section 527(f).

When one goes to the website for Priorities USA, a liberal 501(c)(4), you will find that the video on the opening page is an "indirect participation in opposition to a candidate for political office," in this case Mitt Romney during the last campaign.
http://www.prioritiesusaaction.org/

Another liberal 501(c)(4) is Moveon.org. Are you going to claim that Moveon.org is not political and doesn't advocate directly or indirectly for one candidate over another????

Sorry. But until liberal and Democrat supporters start going after THESE and other examples specifically and as hard as they do the conservative ones....then they have ZERO standing to criticize. And if one does NOT see that what the IRS has done is biased and wrong.....one also has ZERO standing on this issue and also make them biased.

 

The donor list for both 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) entities do not need to be disclosed, period. I'm not opposed to spending on political issues but I want to know who's doing the spending.

As I've noted I don't believe the laws are nearly strong enough because charitiable organizations shouldn't be involved in the political process at all. If they are then they should be required to register as a PAC because that's what they're doing. What we have are "soft-PAC's" hiding under 501(c) protected status and that's BS. We need to tighten up the laws because they're ineffective at stopping political action groups from hiding donations under 501(c) status.

As noted though none of the "Tea Party" or pseudo "Patriot" organizations were limited or prohibited from participating in the 2012 election and that was a claim made. It was a blatant lie.

Of note there hasn't been a case established that "liberal" organizations weren't also subjected to additional scrutiny when filing for 501(c) status. That "right-wing" claim has been completely unsupported. Any organization submitting for 501(c) status can, and often are, subjected to additional scrutiny by the IRS.

 

Oh, so you want us to prove a negative. That's not how it works. I've not seen ONE liberal group of applicants come forward to claim they were also targeted for political views. No liberal groups have come forward and made the claim they were given special scrutiny, additional questioning, and or months and years of delay or non action. And in fact, the IG said liberal groups were not targeted. Even Lois Lerners planted question apology was to conservative groups. So your last paragraph is partisan nonsense.

 

I sincerely hope that looney Rand Paul runs. Partly because he'll be eviscerated by the other GOP candidates. Partly because the absurdity of libertarianism will be exposed.

 

He says he supports U.S. military intervention in Uganda to root out the Lords Resistance Army and kill its leader, Joseph Kony. He thinks the drone war in Pakistan and Yemen creates more enemies than it eliminates, but doesn’t want to take drone strikes off the proverbial “table.” He wants to “completely withdraw our military presence” from Afghanistan, but wants to keep our military bases there. In fact, U.S. military bases should be maintained throughout the Middle East, he says, even though America faces “no military threats.” He supports “humanitarian intervention.” He wants to cut military and defense budgets by 43 percent, but only reduce national security spending to 2003 levels, “and just wring out the excess.”

Johnson is putting forth an image of himself of a former New Mexico governor who is outside the political establishment and serious about cutting spending. But evidently, the man hasn’t a clue what he is talking about with regards to foreign policy. His musings about war and intervention are little more than guesswork, wading his way through what he supposes is the libertarian position, while making clear he is no non-interventionist.

http://antiwar.com/blog/2012/04/12/gary-johnson-libertarian-candidate-is-out-of-his-element/

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/trying-to-make-sense-of-gary-johnsons-foreign-policy/

http://reason.com/blog/2012/04/11/gary-johnsons-foreign-policy-libertarian

 

"Liberal" groups wouldn't come forward as being "targeted" because it would be "routine" for the IRS to follow-up with additional scrutiny in such cases if it questioned the ligitimacy of the organization. We also haven't seen an influx of "liberal" PAC's trying to seek 501(c) protections but we have seen right-wing PAC's seeking 501(c) protections. The Tea Party Movement was exclusively about Political Action and was never based upon being "charitable" organizations.

I also find not problem whatsoever with "targeting" groups that have a historical background of being anti-tax Political Action Committees seeking 501(c) exemption. They are the most likely organizations that would try to hide their political activities under 501(c) tax exempt status. In fact one of the primary complaints expressed here was that the additional IRS scrutiny prevented these organizations from being PAC's during the 2012 election.

501(c) entities are NOT supposed to be PAC's so when a historical "PAC" suddenly seeks 501(c) exemption status it should be subjected to additional scrutiny by the IRS. On this very thread Republicans complain that these organizations weren't allowed to act as PAC's during the 2012 election process (although they weren't) and that alone would justify additional scrutiny by the IRS.

What part of "PAC's should not be granted 501(c) status" do Republicans not understand?

 

As a card carrying Libertarian I certainly had reservations about Gary Johnson especially related to his foreign policy but gave him credit for finally rejecting the Republican Party and seeking to become better informed on libertarianism in joining the Libertarian Party. Johnson was unquestionably "right-on" when it came to the US budget because he flatly stated he'd balance the US budget for 2014 (which would be his first budget year). He was a bit vague on how to balance the budget but obviously it would have required more federal tax revenue as well as reduced spending.

Yes, Johnson had much to learn about libertarian political ideology but at least he shed the shackles of the Republican Party. Rand Paul remains a Republican and will probably always be a Republican and Republicans are not Libertarians.

 

Neither are liberals and Democrats Libertarians. But I don't see some of those who call themselves card carrying Libertarians doing anything but defending Democrats, liberals and Obama. It's what one argues for and against that describes what they really are; not what someone decides to call themselves.

 

Name 'em!
We've seen one very important liberal one too. And guess what? He got his approved personally by Ms. Lois Lerner in a record 30 day time period.

[h=2]Organizing for Action[/h][h=1]Statement of Purpose[/h]Organizing for Action is a nonprofit organization established to support President Obama in achieving enactment of the national agenda Americans voted for on Election Day 2012. OFA will advocate for these policies throughout the country and will mobilize citizens of all parties and diverse points to speak out for speedy passage and effective implementation of this program, including gun violence prevention, sensible environmental policies to address climate change and immigration reform. In addition, OFA will encourage the formation of chapters that will be dedicated at the grassroots level to this program, but also committed to identifying and working progressive change on a range of issues at the state and local level. In carrying its work, OFA will operate as a "social welfare" organization within the meaning of section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code.

Now, in case you're not up-to-date on just exactly what OFA is and where it came from.....here's a little review:

OFA was Obama's campaign organization. In fact, the reorganization...at the beginning of this year.... called OFA which is a 501(c)(4) "social welfare" group now, began with leftover funds from his campaign. Odd how they were allowed to do that, right? I'm sure Lois Lerner would not have approved that if it were a conservative group....but since she's a huge Obama supporter, she had no problem with using her IRS powers to get his approved in record time and with no concerns.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/18/organizing-for-action-obama_n_2503668.html

 

I don't believe the OFA should be able to claim exemption as a 501(c) just like I don't believe NOM should be able to claim an exemption as a 501(c).

It was interesting to find out that the targeting of "Tea Party" organizations actually started with a "Republican" manager of the IRS and wasn't started by liberals.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-...geting-didn-t-start-in-cincinnati-office.html

This whole "scandal" has blown up in the Republican faces just like Benghazi did when it was found that Republican staffers presented fraudulent "emails" to ABC News.

 

Just as I thought: one short word about Obama's 501(c)(4) and then back to smearing Republicans. Sorry....but the conservatives have the same rights as the president and Democrats on this issue. They will seek and get donations from their big money sources just as Democrats and the president does. And they WILL speak out just like Democrats and the president does.

 

Didn't hurt Obama's chances.

 

To exercise their natural rights.

Of course not.

It's only your opinion that abortion is an "inalienable right". Others would argue that abortion effects the inalienable right to life of the unborn. Paul believes the best way to settle the issue is to let the argument play out on the state and local level per the TENTH AMENDMENT, which you would like to ignore.

He believes that the individual rights to life and liberty are inalienable and Constitutionally protected. He categorically supports the rights of the citizenry as lawful and substantive. You are just conflating privileges with rights. US citizenship per the Fourteenth Amendment is not a "natural right", as you do not need to be a US citizen in order to retain your natural rights.

 

The US Supreme Court does not have the authority to decide matters of "personhood". Nowhere in the Constitution are they given the authority to decide when or under what conditions we become persons. That is a power reserved to the people and the States per the TENTH AMENDMENT.

 

Hardcore ideologues become giddy when Randy spouts libertarian boilerplate on some issues, despite his being a dyed-in-the wool statist on others. Neither is an impediment to having a shot at the Republican nomination.

What kills his chances is his failing the GOP litmus test: kowtowing to the military/industrial complex.

It is folks such as the former CEO of Halliburton that keep its subsidy, the GOP, in line. In that respect, they'll tolerate Paul's apostasy if he can get an otherwise disenchanted voter onto the bus by flashing his vampy enticements, but they'd never allow him anywhere near the driver's seat.

​

.

"Nation-building fiascos have been very, very good to me!"​

The Weltanschauung is the bait. It's really about the benjamins.

 

That's the line you must take to restore human chattel to their owners in those States where that right was seized from them by the federal government.

It won't work any better than surrendering to the State the power to intrude into every woman's womb before personhood has been achieved in the gestative process, but I guess its all you have.

 

Excuse me?

I have no idea what you're talking about.

 

Zealots not being allowed to co-opt a state into intruding into a woman's womb before the gestative process has reached the stage of viability, personhood. A zygote is not a person, but a slave was, regardless of a state's trying to define either differently.

However, that does not impact upon the thread's topic, that I had previously illuminated:

 

So Paul isn't on the same side of Cheney and Republicans on defense spending. So what?

I believe Cheney comes from the old school thought that he was for wars now he isn't. He would rather see Obama's use of drones to do more than using more soldiers.

He has completely sided with Obama on defense and Paul isn't one to always follow the leader in appeasing Obama by voting for not so popular bills. The sequester is a joke. Just ask anyone who knows Obama wants to give aid to the Syrian rebels to which most Republicans are against including Paul.

Rand Paul is a libertarian with views that are somewhat contradictory to the Republican view. He isn't against legalizing pot but on the other hand his views do not include agreeing with same sex marraige, which most Republicans are against.

I admire anyone who can stand up for 13 hours on the filibuster of approving drones to kill americans on our soil.

Does he need to approve same sex marraige to be a 2016 contender? No, he doesn't.

 

I saw him at that rally the other day talking about the IRS and immigration. He talks such nonsense like getting rid of the IRS. Really? When you do, who's going to collect taxes that are used for building and maintaining roads? What an idiot. These people have no sense at all.

 

I am good with getting rid of the IRS because of the recent scandal of them targeting the tea party and other right wing organizations.

Are you okay with the CEO's getting 6 figure bonuses? What did Obama say to auto makers and AIG?

What about the thousands the employess used of the taxpayers money to party and make videos/dance classes?

I can't believe the left cannot see what Obama is really involved in. For one, he is a hypocrite, second he says he will address issues but doesn't have a problem spending trillions of taxpayers dollars.

He is in bed with the IRS and anyone can see it.


In addition, we wouldn't get rid of the name IRS, just revamp the whole system and have a fair tax. Isn't that what Obama always campaigns on, fair share?

Rand would want the IRS totally investigated and get rid of most of those employees that take up desk space and collect money for what Judge Jeanine says, "A days work for a days pay". Get rid of those lazy CEO's first, bring in new non partisan staff and start American on a new path for a fair tax for all of us.

 

they want the corporation to run this country, smaller government, bigger corporations, become the for profit society and if your not profitable... your expendable

.

 

So, the elite that run the GOP does not permit his presidential nomination.

Again, kowtowing to the military/industrial complex is the GOP litmus test.

 

Sadly, I as a conservative, feel you may be mostly correct. Paul would be a great president, but his chances are slim.