• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • Christian Forums is looking to bring on new moderators to the CF Staff Team! If you have been an active member of CF for at least three months with 200 posts during that time, you're eligible to apply! This is a great way to give back to CF and keep the forums running smoothly! If you're interested, you can submit your application here!

Trump has decided to revoke Harvard's tax-exempt status

Valletta

Well-Known Member
Oct 10, 2020
11,455
5,370
Minnesota
✟301,385.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married

This is the right decision. There is no room for antisemitism in our country and taking away Harvard's non-profit status is a small but proper thing to do.
 

DaisyDay

I Did Nothing Wrong!! ~~Team Deep State
Jan 7, 2003
40,989
19,332
Finger Lakes
✟289,335.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Unitarian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Is it the president's place to direct who does and who does not get non-profit status? Previous presidents let the specialists determine if an institution did or did not meet the criteria. Donald's criteria seems to be based on his personal opinion and whether or not sufficient fealty to himself has been rendered.
 
Upvote 0

DaisyDay

I Did Nothing Wrong!! ~~Team Deep State
Jan 7, 2003
40,989
19,332
Finger Lakes
✟289,335.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Unitarian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Upvote 0

BCP1928

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2024
6,597
3,373
82
Goldsboro NC
✟239,353.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Is it the president's place to direct who does and who does not get non-profit status? Previous presidents let the specialists determine if an institution did or did not meet the criteria. Donald's criteria seems to be based on his personal opinion and whether or not sufficient fealty to himself has been rendered.
In this case it's part of his attack on "woke" so it's not necessarily his opinion, just the bigotry of his Christian supporters that he's channelling..
 
Upvote 0

Hans Blaster

One nation indivisible
Mar 11, 2017
20,471
15,540
55
USA
✟391,808.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Is it the president's place to direct who does and who does not get non-profit status? Previous presidents let the specialists determine if an institution did or did not meet the criteria. Donald's criteria seems to be based on his personal opinion and whether or not sufficient fealty to himself has been rendered.
It is actually a crime for him to do so:

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg...6-subtitleF-chap75-subchapA-partI-sec7217.pdf

26 USC 7217(e)(1) specifically mentions the President being subject to the law.
 
Upvote 0

Aryeh Jay

Living the dream, experiencing the nightmare.
Site Supporter
Jul 19, 2012
17,147
15,838
MI - Michigan
✟639,783.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Married
Upvote 0

Hans Blaster

One nation indivisible
Mar 11, 2017
20,471
15,540
55
USA
✟391,808.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Take it to the Trump appointed Supreme Court. They said he's untouchable as President.
Whether trump will or can be charged is separate from the legality of it. Given the illegal action to make the IRS take action, the action will be voided in the time it takes a judge to write an opinion.
 
Upvote 0

Aryeh Jay

Living the dream, experiencing the nightmare.
Site Supporter
Jul 19, 2012
17,147
15,838
MI - Michigan
✟639,783.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Married
Whether trump will or can be charged is separate from the legality of it. Given the illegal action to make the IRS take action, the action will be voided in the time it takes a judge to write an opinion.

Ah! But you see, then IRS can't take action against Trump because he has been going through an IRS audit for the last ten years and he can't release anything until they finish the audit sometime in 2077.
 
Upvote 0

The IbanezerScrooge

I can't believe what I'm hearing...
Sep 1, 2015
3,372
5,710
51
Florida
✟303,548.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
Upvote 0

The IbanezerScrooge

I can't believe what I'm hearing...
Sep 1, 2015
3,372
5,710
51
Florida
✟303,548.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
Is it the president's place to direct who does and who does not get non-profit status? Previous presidents let the specialists determine if an institution did or did not meet the criteria. Donald's criteria seems to be based on his personal opinion and whether or not sufficient fealty to himself has been rendered.
And, yeah. I don't think the president actually has the power to make that decision or create an exception for a specific entity on a whim. If Harvard meets the criteria they should be able to be tax exempt or whatever special tax category they qualify for.
 
Upvote 0

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Site Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
27,342
16,591
Here
✟1,416,407.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
And, yeah. I don't think the president actually has the power to make that decision or create an exception for a specific entity on a whim. If Harvard meets the criteria they should be able to be tax exempt or whatever special tax category they qualify for.

It would be nice if there was an independent third party civil regulatory body (not tied to either party - and not tied directly to the IRS) that was in charge of doling out that exemption, but alas, there's not.

I touched on this in a previous thread, but there's a slew of loopholes to the "political entanglement rules" (as well as some rather vague rules) that have created an environment in which a lot of organizations end up enjoying tax emptions, that really shouldn't.


One trick is to have a 501(c)3 organization (for the tax exemption) leveraging a 501(c)4 affiliate org (often with a similar sounding name) to do the "dirty work"

The other is for the org to inundate someone with information that would definitely make a person lean toward voting for one candidate/party over the other, but don't explicitly use names and just use "Issues" and then follow it up with "neutral voter awareness material", it's tantamount to the same thing as just saying "hey you should vote for XYZ" just with a few additional steps added to get around the laws.


If I wanted to succinctly put it "The NRA is tax exempt, case closed" (we all know they're all about getting people to vote republican) -- they leverage the first trick I mentioned.


But there are others (like Churches and Universities) who leverage the latter approach.


For instance, if I inundate a bunch of people with
"XYZ is the issue of our generation, you people need to vote to protect XYZ... anyone who seeks to limit your ability to do/have XYZ is committing an assault on your liberties


....oh....and by the way, here's a neutral voter awareness pamphlet simply telling you which candidates are pro-XYZ and which ones are anti-XYZ...but this pamphlet isn't endorsing any particular candidate or party
"

...that's completely legal and tax-exempt status will be protected.

But, in effect, it's no different than just saying "Vote for Joe Smith, he's pro XYZ" (which would be against the rules and would get tax-exempt status yanked)
 
Upvote 0

BCP1928

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2024
6,597
3,373
82
Goldsboro NC
✟239,353.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
It would be nice if there was an independent third party civil regulatory body (not tied to either party - and not tied directly to the IRS) that was in charge of doling out that exemption, but alas, there's not.

I touched on this in a previous thread, but there's a slew of loopholes to the "political entanglement rules" (as well as some rather vague rules) that have created an environment in which a lot of organizations end up enjoying tax emptions, that really shouldn't.


One trick is to have a 501(c)3 organization (for the tax exemption) leveraging a 501(c)4 affiliate org (often with a similar sounding name) to do the "dirty work"

The other is for the org to inundate someone with information that would definitely make a person lean toward voting for one candidate/party over the other, but don't explicitly use names and just use "Issues" and then follow it up with "neutral voter awareness material", it's tantamount to the same thing as just saying "hey you should vote for XYZ" just with a few additional steps added to get around the laws.


If I wanted to succinctly put it "The NRA is tax exempt, case closed" (we all know they're all about getting people to vote republican) -- they leverage the first trick I mentioned.


But there are others (like Churches and Universities) who leverage the latter approach.


For instance, if I inundate a bunch of people with
"XYZ is the issue of our generation, you people need to vote to protect XYZ... anyone who seeks to limit your ability to do/have XYZ is committing an assault on your liberties


....oh....and by the way, here's a neutral voter awareness pamphlet simply telling you which candidates are pro-XYZ and which ones are anti-XYZ...but this pamphlet isn't endorsing any particular candidate or party
"

...that's completely legal and tax-exempt status will be protected.

But, in effect, it's no different than just saying "Vote for Joe Smith, he's pro XYZ" (which would be against the rules and would get tax-exempt status yanked)
But the present fracas is rather different. Trump is going after the universities over antisemitism, having redefined antisemitism to include any criticism of Netanyahu's policies or any sympathy for the civilians in Gaza. "Support for terrorism" is the accusation. Where is the electioneering in that? It looks like nothing so much as an ideological clamp down.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: DaisyDay
Upvote 0

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Site Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
27,342
16,591
Here
✟1,416,407.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
But the present fracas is rather different. Trump is going after the universities over antisemitism, having redefined antisemitism to include any criticism of Netanyahu's policies or any sympathy for the civilians in Gaza. "Support for terrorism" is the accusation. Where is the electioneering in that? It looks like nothing so much as an ideological clamp down.
As soon as it became a black & white (no room for middle ground) conflict of "Pro-Israel vs. Pro-Palestine" (largely drawn down partisan lines), it became much closer than you think.


In a nutshell, if a political faction is scalp hunting based on a certain premise... first rule: don't become (or give cover for) a manifestation of that premise.

It was pretty obvious from the outset that they were going to look for any reason they could to label "pro-Palestinian sentiments" with "Jew hating", speaking up on behalf of (or running cover for) entities that actually do hate Jews was a major tactical mistake.


The reality is, Palestine is largely comprised of actual antisemites.


With regards to attitudes towards Jews, Palestine (Gaza & Westbank)... 93% believe most of the tropes and hold views that would put them in-line with the KKK.

Therefore, if one wants to not paint a target on their back, they need to criticize Israel in a way that doesn't involve flying a Palestinian flag and chanting their slogans.


Two things can be true at once...one can be a legitimate victim, and hold a terrible ideology at the same time.


Since I know you're a progressive leaning person...here's an example.

If some enraged lunatic decided to try to burn down Ted Cruz's house with his family in it. You could look at that action and say "that's bad, we need to do everything we can to stop people from doing that", correct?

Would you express that rejection of their actions by wearing a pro-Ted Cruz shirt and rallying with a bunch of other people to chant his favorite campaign slogans?

Or would you find a way to condemn their actions that didn't involve glorifying Ted Cruz?
 
Upvote 0

Hans Blaster

One nation indivisible
Mar 11, 2017
20,471
15,540
55
USA
✟391,808.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
It would be nice if there was an independent third party civil regulatory body (not tied to either party - and not tied directly to the IRS) that was in charge of doling out that exemption, but alas, there's not.
Do you seriously not understand how the "Deep State" work? Seriously, those determinations are made by working through rubrics by bureaucrats. That's the point of having a professional civil service.
I touched on this in a previous thread, but there's a slew of loopholes to the "political entanglement rules" (as well as some rather vague rules) that have created an environment in which a lot of organizations end up enjoying tax emptions, that really shouldn't.
If you would kindly not drag this one off topic it would be appreciated.
One trick is to have a 501(c)3 organization (for the tax exemption) leveraging a 501(c)4 affiliate org (often with a similar sounding name) to do the "dirty work"

The other is for the org to inundate someone with information that would definitely make a person lean toward voting for one candidate/party over the other, but don't explicitly use names and just use "Issues" and then follow it up with "neutral voter awareness material", it's tantamount to the same thing as just saying "hey you should vote for XYZ" just with a few additional steps added to get around the laws.


If I wanted to succinctly put it "The NRA is tax exempt, case closed" (we all know they're all about getting people to vote republican) -- they leverage the first trick I mentioned.


But there are others (like Churches and Universities) who leverage the latter approach.


For instance, if I inundate a bunch of people with
"XYZ is the issue of our generation, you people need to vote to protect XYZ... anyone who seeks to limit your ability to do/have XYZ is committing an assault on your liberties


....oh....and by the way, here's a neutral voter awareness pamphlet simply telling you which candidates are pro-XYZ and which ones are anti-XYZ...but this pamphlet isn't endorsing any particular candidate or party
"

...that's completely legal and tax-exempt status will be protected.

But, in effect, it's no different than just saying "Vote for Joe Smith, he's pro XYZ" (which would be against the rules and would get tax-exempt status yanked)
Sigh.
 
Upvote 0

Perpetual Student

Fighting ignorance, one textbook at the time
Jan 28, 2025
130
109
54
Mechelen
✟11,334.00
Country
Belgium
Gender
Male
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private

This is the right decision. There is no room for antisemitism in our country and taking away Harvard's non-profit status is a small but proper thing to do.
Strange than, that we didn't hear the then president about this display of antisemitism:
1746339767995.png


1746339816267.png
 
Upvote 0

Valletta

Well-Known Member
Oct 10, 2020
11,455
5,370
Minnesota
✟301,385.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Strange than, that we didn't hear the then president about this display of antisemitism:
View attachment 364499

View attachment 364500
During Trump's first term there also was a lot of opposition from the left toward his efforts against antisemitism:
 
Upvote 0

Aryeh Jay

Living the dream, experiencing the nightmare.
Site Supporter
Jul 19, 2012
17,147
15,838
MI - Michigan
✟639,783.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Married
Upvote 0

Aryeh Jay

Living the dream, experiencing the nightmare.
Site Supporter
Jul 19, 2012
17,147
15,838
MI - Michigan
✟639,783.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Married
During Trump's first term there also was a lot of opposition from the left toward his efforts against antisemitism:

We remember Trump's crusade against antisemitism.

1000007541.jpg
 
Upvote 0

BCP1928

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2024
6,597
3,373
82
Goldsboro NC
✟239,353.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
As soon as it became a black & white (no room for middle ground) conflict of "Pro-Israel vs. Pro-Palestine" (largely drawn down partisan lines), it became much closer than you think.
Right. I don't blame Trump for it, because the line was sharply drawn along religious rather than partisan lines by Christians suffering from the Manichaean derangement which affects their position on that and so many other issues. I don't think Trump cares, he's just playing to his base.
In a nutshell, if a political faction is scalp hunting based on a certain premise... first rule: don't become (or give cover for) a manifestation of that premise.

It was pretty obvious from the outset that they were going to look for any reason they could to label "pro-Palestinian sentiments" with "Jew hating", speaking up on behalf of (or running cover for) entities that actually do hate Jews was a major tactical mistake.


The reality is, Palestine is largely comprised of actual antisemites.


With regards to attitudes towards Jews, Palestine (Gaza & Westbank)... 93% believe most of the tropes and hold views that would put them in-line with the KKK.

Therefore, if one wants to not paint a target on their back, they need to criticize Israel in a way that doesn't involve flying a Palestinian flag and chanting their slogans.


Two things can be true at once...one can be a legitimate victim, and hold a terrible ideology at the same time.


Since I know you're a progressive leaning person...here's an example.

If some enraged lunatic decided to try to burn down Ted Cruz's house with his family in it. You could look at that action and say "that's bad, we need to do everything we can to stop people from doing that", correct?
Correct. But I would also consider what Ted Cruz might have done to enrage the lunatic. Not necessarily to blame Ted Cruz, but to understand the situation better in the hope of defusing it.
Would you express that rejection of their actions by wearing a pro-Ted Cruz shirt and rallying with a bunch of other people to chant his favorite campaign slogans?

Or would you find a way to condemn their actions that didn't involve glorifying Ted Cruz?
I certainly wouldn't flat out lie about the situation.
 
Upvote 0

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Site Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
27,342
16,591
Here
✟1,416,407.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Strange than, that we didn't hear the then president about this display of antisemitism:
View attachment 364499

View attachment 364500
the president said, "You’re changing history. You’re changing culture. And you had people — and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists — because they should be condemned totally. But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists."
 
Upvote 0