I agree with you. He/she should lose license. nm

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

I've earned through my hard work to give to some lazy bum who would rather mooch than work for a living. I'm not willing to lose my freedom. To me....it seems like government wants to take control over more things and when will it end.

I do not support our president because I do not believe his goals and agenda will help anyone who really needs the help. It will continue to enable moochers to keep on mooching. It will hurt charities by taxing the rich.....who, BTW, are the biggest donators to charities. It will hurt businesses by taxing them more and in turn they will cut back and lay off workers, not hire more employees. Cap and trade will hurt everyone as gas prices will sore, utility costs will sky rocket, and the price for all goods and services will go up. That doesn't help people who have to decide which is more imporant....gas to get to work or food to put on the table.

To stand by and let these things happen because we support our country and just have to see how things come together......to me that is just ignorant. That is how we ended up in this situation in the first place. We supported our country and put our trust in government (dems and pubs alike) and we ended up getting it stuck to us.

Both Suzy Orman and Jim Cramer were on the Today show and they thought it was a good deal which, I might add, surprised me.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-allsaints7nov07,0,592419,full.story?coll=la-home-headlines

Antiwar Sermon Brings IRS Warning

All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena risks losing its tax-exempt status because of a former rector's remarks in 2004.

By Patricia Ward Biederman and Jason Felch
Times Staff Writers

November 7, 2005

The Internal Revenue Service has warned one of Southern California's largest and most liberal churches that it is at risk of losing its tax-exempt status because of an antiwar sermon two days before the 2004 presidential election.

Rector J. Edwin Bacon of All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena told many congregants during morning services Sunday that a guest sermon by the church's former rector, the Rev. George F. Regas, on Oct. 31, 2004, had prompted a letter from the IRS.

In his sermon, Regas, who from the pulpit opposed both the Vietnam War and 1991's Gulf War, imagined Jesus participating in a political debate with then-candidates George W. Bush and John Kerry. Regas said that good people of profound faith could vote for either man, and did not tell parishioners whom to support.

But he criticized the war in Iraq, saying that Jesus would have told Bush, Mr. President, your doctrine of preemptive war is a failed doctrine. Forcibly changing the regime of an enemy that posed no imminent threat has led to disaster.

On June 9, the church received a letter from the IRS stating that a reasonable belief exists that you may not be tax-exempt as a church � The federal tax code prohibits tax-exempt organizations, including churches, from intervening in political campaigns and elections.

The letter went on to say that our concerns are based on a Nov. 1, 2004, newspaper article in the Los Angeles Times and a sermon presented at the All Saints Church discussed in the article.

The IRS cited The Times story's description of the sermon as a searing indictment of the Bush administration's policies in Iraq and noted that the sermon described tax cuts as inimical to the values of Jesus.

As Bacon spoke, 1984 Nobel Peace Prize winner Archbishop Desmond Tutu, a co-celebrant of Sunday's Requiem Eucharist, looked on.

We are so careful at our church never to endorse a candidate, Bacon said in a later interview.

One of the strongest sermons I've ever given was against President Clinton's fraying of the social safety net.

Telephone calls to IRS officials in Washington, D.C., and Los Angeles were not returned.

On a day when churches throughout California took stands on both sides of Proposition 73, which would bar abortions for minors unless parents are notified, some at All Saints feared the politically active church had been singled out.

I think obviously we were a bit shocked and dismayed, said Bob Long, senior warden for the church's oversight board. We felt somewhat targeted.

Bacon said the church had retained the services of a Washington law firm with expertise in tax-exempt organizations.

And he told the congregation: It's important for everyone to understand that the IRS concerns are not supported by the facts.

After the initial inquiry, the church provided the IRS with a copy of all literature given out before the election and copies of its policies, Bacon said.

But the IRS recently informed the church that it was not satisfied by those materials, and would proceed with a formal examination. Soon after that, church officials decided to inform the congregation about the dispute.

In an October letter to the IRS, Marcus Owens, the church's tax attorney and a former head of the IRS tax-exempt section, said, It seems ludicrous to suggest that a pastor cannot preach about the value of promoting peace simply because the nation happens to be at war during an election season.

Owens said that an IRS audit team had recently offered the church a settlement during a face-to-face meeting.

They said if there was a confession of wrongdoing, they would not proceed to the exam stage. They would be willing not to revoke tax-exempt status if the church admitted intervening in an election.

The church declined the offer.

Long said Bacon is fond of saying it's a sin not to vote, but has never told anyone how to vote. We don't do that. We preach to people how to vote their values, the biblical principles.

Regas, who was rector of All Saints from 1967 to 1995, said in an interview that he was surprised by the IRS action and then I became suspicious, suspicious that they were going after a progressive church person.

Regas helped the current church leadership collect information for the IRS on his sermon and the church's policies on involvement in political campaigns.

Some congregants were upset that a sermon citing Jesus Christ's championing of peace and the poor was the occasion for an IRS probe.

I'm appalled, said 70-year-old Anne Thompson of Altadena, a professional singer who also makes vestments for the church.

In a government that leans so heavily on religious values, that they would pull a stunt like this, it makes me heartsick.

Joe Mirando, an engineer from Burbank, questioned whether the 3,500-member church would be under scrutiny if it were not known for its activism and its liberal stands on social issues.

The question is, is it politically motivated? he said. That's the underlying feeling of everyone here. I don't have enough information to make a decision, but there's a suspicion.

Bacon revealed the IRS investigation at both morning services. Until his announcement, the mood of the congregation had been solemn because the services remembered, by name, those associated with the church who had died since last All Saints Day.

Regas' 2004 sermon imagined how Jesus would admonish Bush and Kerry if he debated them. Regas never urged parishioners to vote for one candidate over the other, but he did say that he believes Jesus would oppose the war in Iraq, and that Jesus would be saddened by Bush's positions on the use and testing of nuclear weapons.

In the sermon, Regas said, President Bush has led us into war with Iraq as a response to terrorism. Yet I believe Jesus would say to Bush and Kerry: 'War is itself the most extreme form of terrorism. President Bush, you have not made dramatically clear what have been the human consequences of the war in Iraq.'

Later, he had Jesus confront both Kerry and Bush: I will tell you what I think of your war: The sin at the heart of this war against Iraq is your belief that an American life is of more value than an Iraqi life. That an American child is more precious than an Iraqi baby. God loathes war.

If Jesus debated Bush and Kerry, Regas said, he would say to them, Why is so little mentioned about the poor?''

In his own voice, Regas said: ''The religious right has drowned out everyone else. Now the faith of Jesus has come to be known as pro-rich, pro-war and pro-American�. I'm not pro-abortion, but pro-choice. There is something vicious and violent about coercing a woman to carry to term an unwanted child.

When you go into the voting booth, Regas told the congregation, take with you all that you know about Jesus, the peacemaker. Take all that Jesus means to you. Then vote your deepest values.

Owens, the tax attorney, said he was surprised that the IRS is pursuing the case despite explicit statements by Regas that he was not trying to influence the congregation's vote.

I doubt it's politically motivated, Owens said. I think it is more a case of senior management at IRS not paying attention to what the rules are.

According to Owens, six years ago the IRS used to send about 20 such letters to churches a year. That number has increased sharply because of the agency's recent delegation of audit authority to agents on the front lines, he said.

He knew of two other churches, both critical of government policies, that had received similar letters, Owens said.

It's unclear how often the IRS raises questions about the tax-exempt status of churches.

While such action is rare, the IRS has at least once revoked the charitable designation of a church.

Shortly before the 1992 presidential election, a church in Binghamton, N.Y., ran advertisements against Bill Clinton's candidacy, and the tax agency ruled that the congregation could not retain its tax-exempt status because it had intervened in an election.

Bacon said he thought the IRS would eventually drop its case against All Saints.

It is a social action church, but not a politically partisan church, he said.

Hillary's supporters like General Wesley Clark and others are starting to come out now in full force making statements that are not favorable towards Barack. Even though Clark's statements are true (just cos you are shot down in an aircraft doesn't mean your qualified to be President) but it doesn't help in getting your party elected to the white house. I knew she was going to do it so that McCain would win and because he's so weak he'll only be in four years then she and Bill will run again in 4 years. I just didn't know how she was planning it until I watched the news this a.m. She is such a skum bag in my opinion. The worry of having to listen to her again in 4 years is enough to put me through the roof again.

It is possible. It has happened before. I think now especially in these final two days, when people are hearing Obama saying in a radio interview that he will bankrupt coal companies and skyrocket electricity bills, a lot of people are really wondering. Especially the states where coal is their major industry. They are starting to realize that a vote for the O means they'll be out of work. Along with the birth certificate issue not being resolved, and other the other numerous questions about the O people are really wondering about him.

Army Orders Soldiers to Shed Dragon Skin or Lose SGLI Death Benefits

By Nathaniel R. Helms

Two deploying soldiers and a concerned mother reported Friday afternoon that the U.S. Army appears to be singling out soldiers who have purchased Pinnacle's Dragon Skin Body Armor for special treatment. The soldiers, who are currently staging for combat operations from a secret location, reported that their commander told them if they were wearing Pinnacle Dragon Skin and were killed their beneficiaries might not receive the death benefits from their $400,000 SGLI life insurance policies. The soldiers were ordered to leave their privately purchased body armor at home or face the possibility of both losing their life insurance benefit and facing disciplinary action.

The soldiers asked for anonymity because they are concerned they will face retaliation for going public with the Army's apparently new directive. At the sources' requests DefenseWatch has also agreed not to reveal the unit at which the incident occured for operational security reasons.

On Saturday morning a soldier affected by the order reported to DefenseWatch that the directive specified that all commercially available body armor was prohibited. The soldier said the order came down Friday morning from Headquarters, United States Special Operations Command (HQ, USSOCOM), located at MacDill Air Force Base, Florida. It arrived unexpectedly while his unit was preparing to deploy on combat operations. The soldier said the order was deeply disturbiing to many of the men who had used their own money to purchase Dragon Skin because it will affect both their mobility and ballistic protection.

We have to be able to move. It (Dragon Skin) is heavy, but it is made so we have mobility and the best ballistic protection out there. This is crazy. And they are threatening us with our benefits if we don't comply. he said.

The soldier reiterated Friday's reports that any soldier who refused to comply with the order and was subsequently killed in action could be denied the $400,000 death benefit provided by their SGLI life insurance policy as well as face disciplinary action.

As of this report Saturday morning the Army has not yet responded to a DefenseWatch inquiry.

Recently Dragon Skin became an item of contention between proponents of the Interceptor OTV body armor generally issued to all service members deploying in combat theaters and its growing legion of critics. Critics of the Interceptor OTV system say it is ineffective and inferior to Dragon Skin, as well as several other commercially available body armor systems on the market. Last week DefenseWatch released a secret Marine Corps report that determined that 80% of the 401 Marines killed in Iraq between April 2004 and June 2005 might have been saved if the Interceptor OTV body armor they were wearing was more effective. The Army has declined to comment on the report because doing so could aid the enemy, an Army spokesman has repeatedly said.

A U.S. Army spokesman was not available for comment at the time DW's original report (Friday - 1700 CST) was published. DefenseWatch continues to seek a response from the Army and will post one as soon as it becomes available. Yesterday the DoD released a news story through the Armed Forces News Service that quoted Maj. Gen. Steven Speaks, the Army's director of force development, who countered critical media reports by denying that the U.S. military is behind the curve in providing appropriate force protection gear for troops deployed to Iraq and elsewhere in the global war against terrorism. The New York Tiimes and Washington Post led the bandwagon of mainstream media that capitalized on DefenseWatch's release of the Marine Corps study. Both newspapers released the forensic information the Army and Marines are unwilling to discuss.

Those headlines entirely miss the point, Speaks said.

The effort to improve body armor has been a programmatic effort in the case of the Army that has gone on with great intensity for the last five months, he noted.

Speaks' assessment contradicts earlier Army, Marine and DoD statements that indicated as late as last week that the Army was certain there was nothing wrong with Interceptor OTV body armor and that it was and remains the best body armor in the world.

One of the soldiers who lost his coveted Dragon Skin is a veteran operator. He reported that his commander expressed deep regret upon issuing his orders directing him to leave his Dragon Skin body armor behind. The commander reportedly told his subordinates that he had no choice because the orders came from very high up and had to be enforced, the soldier said. Another soldier's story was corroborated by his mother, who helped defray the $6,000 cost of buying the Dragon Skin, she said.

The mother of the soldier, who hails from the Providence, Rhode Island area, said she helped pay for the Dragon Skin as a Christmas present because her son told her it was so much better than the Interceptor OTV they expected to be issued when arriving in country for a combat tour.

He didn't want to use that other stuff, she said. He told me that if anything happened to him I am supposed to raise hell.

At the time the orders were issued the two soldiers had already loaded their Dragon Skin body armor onto the pallets being used to air freight their gear into the operational theater, the soldiers said. They subsequently removed it pursuant to their orders.

Currently nine U.S. generals stationed in Afghanistan are reportedly wearing Pinnacle Dragon Skin body armor, according to company spokesman Paul Chopra. Chopra, a retired Army chief warrant officer and 20+-year pilot in the famed 160th Nightstalkers Special Operations Aviation Regiment (Airborne), said his company was merely told the generals wanted to evaluate the body armor in a combat environment. Chopra said he did not know the names of the general officers wearing the Dragon Skin.

Pinnacle claims more than 3,000 soldiers and civilians stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan are wearing Dragon Skin body armor, Chopra said. Several months ago DefenseWatch began receiving anecdotal reports from individual soldiers that they were being forced to remove all non-issue gear while in theater, including Dragon Skin body armor, boots, and various kinds of non-issue ancillary equipment.

Last year the DoD, under severe pressure from Congress, authorized a one-time $1,000 reimbursement to soldiers who had purchased civilian equipment to supplement either inadequate or unavailable equipment they needed for combat operations. At the time there was no restriction on what the soldiers could buy as long as it was specifically intended to offer personal protection or further their mission capabilities while in theater.

the Supreme Court's decision on eminent domain, either, and I also hope that guy buys Souter's property and turns it into a hotel. I love the name of the restaurant he wants to build in the hotel: Just Desserts. (I can't remember which TV show I saw that on because, contrary to those on these boards who already have me figured out, I DON'T only watch MSNBC. I actually flip back and forth between MSNBC and Fox. I'm sure it was one one of those stations, though.)

I do have a problem with partial birth abortions, based on my limited understanding of it, which is what I've heard the conservatives say about a full or nearly full-term baby being basically born and then "beaten to death" by the doctor. (From what I've discovered from some conservatives on these boards in the past few days, I take everything they say with a grain of salt and accept the possibility up front that it's an exaggerated statement devoid of critical facts.)

But if this is indeed true, then I don't know how it could be considered anything BUT murder. And I don't understand the issue regarding the health of the mother because if the mother can survive the delivery of a baby that can survive outside the womb, then the issue would seem nonexistent. (Again, I don't know that much about it.)

I also have mixed feelings about children and abortion. One the one hand, it is a surgical procedure, and if my child can't even have her ears pierced without my consent, then certainly she shouldn't be allowed to have a surgical procedure without my consent.

But what about if she's been impregnated as the result of a rape by her father or other family member? That sick stuff DOES happen in this country. What if she knows she wants an abortion? Should she be forced to have the baby? I can think of situations where she might be safer if the parents didn't know, but yet I still feel the parents have a right to know. I'm very conflicted about this particular issue and can't say I have a definite opinion. That's why I'd like to hear more on the subject from some intelligent, thoughtful, nonjudgmental people.

As far as gay marriages, I admit I get a little "twinge" at the use of the word "marriage." It might be that something deep in my gut is telling me that marriage SHOULD be between a man and a woman. After all, WE invented it and WE wrecked it. I think they should invent a new name for their unions because from what I've personally seen, gay couples seem to last for a very long time, much longer than some marriages I know. As far as whether or not they should have rights, why SHOULDN'T they? I don't recall a day during puberty when I woke up and made the decision that I was going to be straight. Likewise, I'm willing to bet that no gay person woke up and decided to be gay. I just don't understand why people are so threatened by the thought that a group might actually have RIGHTS in this country. As with abortion or stem cell research, etc., if they don't believe in it, they shouldn't PARTICIPATE IN IT. I'm neither pro-gay or anti-gay. (A quick look in the mirror, though, reminds me that I'm definitely pro-gray.

)

With all of these social issues, as you said, we will "stand in judgment with our maker." That's between us and our own personal God, and those with different religious/spiritual beliefs have no right to shove their beliefs down our throat.

I saw a post on the other board referring to when the U.S. was founded, saying that the vast majority was Christian but that others were given "the freedom to others not to believe..."

NOBODY can "give" anyone "freedom" to either believe or not to believe, and the fact that this poster thinks they can is either very stupid or very scary, and I'm not exactly sure which it is. I think this is relevant because I believe there are some conservatives out there who don't only want the law to reflect their specific narrow brand of religion, but they would LOVE to be able to control what people think and believe.

Knowing that Bush is going to appoint one (maybe two before the end of the year) new Supreme Court Justice(s) scares me because, as you said, our rights are being slowly taken away, and this man has proven by his own actions that the personal freedoms of others aren't things that he cares for much, especially freedom of speech and ideas. That's why he banned anyone who didn't agree 100% with his views from all of his "open town hall" meetings.

We also have an evangelical Senator who holds a public meeting in a search and says that liberals aren't people of faith.

First, it's freedom of speech. Next, it will be freedom of religion. What about freedom of "thought."

I wonder what their views on stem cell research would be if it was discovered that stem cell research held the key to developing a new technique to control thought processes of those who disagree with them.

However, I don't think it's because of President Bush AND his DADDY. I think George W. came into office hell bent on finishing what his daddy DIDN'T finish and only needed a reason, real or invented, to "finish" it. And I totally agree with you when you say that this was his personal agenda. I think the disconnect is that many people want him to focus on terror, but his personal agenda has always caused his focus instead to be on Iraq, and I personally am very fearful for the future of this country as a result of that.

I believe they will definitely find a way to twist it if some are found guilty. Under no circumstances will they admit that this administration could possibly do anything wrong.

It should be criminal to expose children to such hostility and insanity. It sounds like real violence could have ensued if these whackos would have been crossed in any way.

I almost feel for some of these people. A brief visit to the Conservative board left me thinking I should have worn a helmet and worn body armor. Although it's a scary place over there, it must be terrible to exist inside a body that harbors such rage and hatred every day, 24/7. I don't understand what has happened to their religion, but my Christian religion still promotes love, tolerance, respect and the principles of the Golden Rule, all attributes that seem completely foreign to them. All they do is trash others and haven't contributed one positive thing to that board.

Sometimes I think there isn't much difference between these people and the terrorists who attacked us and other countries. They both exhibit signs of mental illness, a maniacal obsession with controlling what everyone believes, and they both promote hatred, violence and intolerance in the name of their respective gods. About the only main difference I can see is that the terrorists, unfortunately, seem to be much more intelligent in their pursuit of their goals.

I had the same feeling about Roberts and I was glad to hear he had done this pro bono work.

With every day that passes, I feel less and less hope. I've never been this frightened of a politician in my entire life.

And I wonder if we had stepped it up a while back, how much of this would be going on today. The more we delay, the better they get at their "craft."

I wish we had never gone in there to begin with and think it's one of the biggest mistakes a president could have ever made. But we're there, and we can't just go in there, turn their country upside down and leave without leaving them with some semblance of normalcy. Those who said this is a quagmire were right on the money.

Anyone who has anything less than a hate Bush agenda should burn in hell as far as GT is concerned. I too don't agree with Bush 100% on everything, but that does not matter to GT. If you agree with Bush on anything you should not pass GO and go straight to hell along with Bush's Stepford wife and alcoholic daughters. Am I painting that picture correctly GT?