It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Chicago pastor forced to HIDE FAMILY after supporting Republican for governor

page: 3
21
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 29 2014 @ 03:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Tax codes don't have anything to do with political party. If you have a different position, prove it.

Lyndon B. Johnson changed the tax code in 1954 to prevent churches from endorsing political opponents. It was done in retaliation against those who endorsed his opponent.

Johnson won a controversial election by 87 votes, and the allegation was he used voter fraud to do it. Over 200 votes were cast in suspicious circumstances, and the people who supposedly voted came forward and said they had not voted that day. Johnson went to court and his friends in the court system prevented a recount. Thousands of illegal votes won him the election.


Of course, "voter fraud" ... should have known.


Historical facts present a slightly different picture:



The Wilson-Gorman Tariff Act of 1894, one of the earliest statutory references to tax-exempt status enjoyed by charitable organizations, extablished the requirement that tax-exempt, charitable organizationsn operate for charitable purposes


Source



Internal Revenue Code of 1954
ENACTED DURING THE SECOND SESSION OF THE EIGHTY-THIRD CONGRESS
OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Begun and held at the City of Washington on
Wednesday, January 6, 1954.
An Act
To revise the internal revenue laws of the United States.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress assembled ...



Public Law 591 - Chapter 736



Ward M. Hussey was the principal drafter of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954. The code was published in volume 68A of the United States Statutes at Large. To prevent confusion with the 1939 Code, the new version was thereafter referred to as the "Internal Revenue Code of 1954" and the prior version as the "Internal Revenue Code of 1939".


Source - Internal Revenue Code of 1954



In less than two years, representatives from various groups, including Treasury, Congress's Joint Committee on Taxation, and the House Office of Legislative Counsel, coordinated a massive information-gathering and legislative drafting process that culminated in the enactment of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.


Source

ADDED IN EDIT



In 1954, Congress passed a law that prohibited any partisan activity by certain nonprofits recognized under the tax code, including churches. If you think a law with such momentous constitutional implications must have been the subject of intense political debate and discussion, you would be wrong. The change was made in a floor amendment that had received no hearings and entailed little or no debate.

The amendment was put forward by then-Minority Leader Sen. Lyndon Johnson, and according to research by Patrick O’Daniel published in the Boston College Law Review in 2001, the amendment was not aimed primarily at churches, but at some of Johnson’s political opponents in Texas. In fact, the two principal targets of Johnson’s ire and his amendment were entirely secular in nature: Dallas millionaire H.L. Hunt’s “Facts Forum,” which had tarred Johnson with being soft on communism, and the Committee for Constitutional Government, another right-wing organization that was part of the McCarthyist fervor of those years. There is no evidence that Johnson’s amendment was targeted at the Catholic or any other church.


National Catholic Reporter

edit on 4Wed, 29 Oct 2014 04:06:40 -050014p0420141066 by Gryphon66 because: NOted




posted on Oct, 29 2014 @ 05:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Of course, "voter fraud" ... should have known.


Historical facts present a slightly different picture:

No. They don't. And it was Voter fraud against another Democrat in 1948.

202 ballots cast in alphabetical order right as the polls were closing. When interviewed several of the supposed voters said they had not voted.

10,000 fraudulent ballots in Bexar County.

Luis Salas, an election judge, personally certified 202 fraudulent ballots.

The State Democrat convention supported Johnson, Coke Stevenson (D) tried to use the courts to overturn the fraudulent victory. Good thing Johnson had the support of the Democrat party, his friend Abe Fortas helped him and the Democrats prevent a recount/Fraud investigation. His use of voter fraud to get elected got him the nickname Landslide Lyndon. Again, it was not a Republican he cheated, him and other Democrats fraudulently beat another Democrat.



posted on Oct, 29 2014 @ 05:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

You are right, he did not target churches, he targeted (per your source) "right-wing organization". It just so happens churches are also right wing, and were included. Either way you look at it, your source proves the changes were made EXACTLY how I said, they were done to silence opposition to the Democrats, and were PURELY done for political gain.

It's disgusting you support that. Careful where you step, any more to the left and you may fall off the cliff.



posted on Oct, 29 2014 @ 05:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen


But since he went very public with his endorsement–including appearing in TV ads for Rauner–Brooks has been under siege by those “tolerant” Democrats who wish death upon him.




Not sure about death but I do wish that he loses his church or at least has to start paying taxes now.

Since when is what he did legal?

I can find plenty of posts by the OP stating that when someone does something illegal they deserve death by cops. What's the difference?



posted on Oct, 29 2014 @ 05:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: IslandOfMisfitToys
Since when is what he did legal?

It was legal for 200 years until 1954. Why would it ever be illegal?



posted on Oct, 29 2014 @ 05:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: IslandOfMisfitToys
Since when is what he did legal?

It was legal for 200 years until 1954. Why would it ever be illegal?


Slavery was legal 200 years ago too.

Why would it ever be illegal?



posted on Oct, 29 2014 @ 05:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: IslandOfMisfitToys

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: IslandOfMisfitToys
Since when is what he did legal?

It was legal for 200 years until 1954. Why would it ever be illegal?


Slavery was legal 200 years ago too.

Why would it ever be illegal?

Logical fallacy. Slavery has nothing to do with the topic. If you can not answer the question on the topic at hand concede the point and admit there is no reason why it should be illegal, other than the reason it was made illegal, to get more votes for Democrats.



posted on Oct, 29 2014 @ 05:59 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

So, according to you, only Republicans go to church?



posted on Oct, 29 2014 @ 06:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: IslandOfMisfitToys
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

So, according to you, only Republicans go to church?


Logical fallacy. Why do you refuse to answer the simple question of why should it have been made illegal after 200 years of being legal?



posted on Oct, 29 2014 @ 07:21 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

My historical comment addressed the history of tax exempt status in this country as well as the "Johnson Amendment"; I guess it wasn't convenient for you to address actual facts, eh?

As far as the so-called Johnson Amendment ... the legislation passed both the House and the Senate. It's only referred to as "the Johnson Amendment" because Johnson brought it to the floor.

Nice Texas Two-Step you're trying to perform there ... but no. You made the claim that Johnson targeted churches. Here, let me remind you. what you claimed:


originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

Lyndon B. Johnson changed the tax code in 1954 to prevent churches from endorsing political opponents. It was done in retaliation against those who endorsed his opponent.


Remember? So now you agree that's not the case. Johnson DIDN'T target churches. That's okay, anyone can make a mistake. You were probably just copying stuff off a website ... what like ADF or something?

As to the rest of your dance there, no, not all churches are "right wing" the National Catholic Reporter stated exactly what I said it did which you are now rather clumsily trying to rewrite. Here let me remind you of that too.



There is no evidence that Johnson’s amendment was targeted at the Catholic or any other church.


I have never claimed anywhere not even one time that politics was not or is not a dirty business at times. Johnson did go after the McCarthyite HL Hunt ... are you a McCarthy fan too?

He did not go after churches, and the law did not only target churches. It did not attempt to silence opposition to the Democrats, and the deal with the tax codes was just one aspect of the massive law that was The Revenue Act of 1954.

You want to make history serve your extremely partisan agenda; I am clearly only quoting the facts

So, here on two occasions, you're either intentionally misrepresenting material or you don't really understand what you're reading. The proof is above.

It's disgusting that you keep trying, at any cost, to make me appear to be saying something I didn't, but, given the side-stepping or high-stepping or goose-stepping you're doing here, I guess I shouldn't be surprised.



posted on Oct, 29 2014 @ 07:37 AM
link   
Typical for Chicago. It's no wonder Chicago is known to be the most corrupt political machine in the country. Corruption and intimidation and threats and blackmail, it's what Chicago politics runs on. It makes you wonder about the people who rise to power via the Chicago machine. It makes you wonder what skeletons are in their closets.



posted on Oct, 29 2014 @ 07:47 AM
link   
So now that we have that out of the way, back on topic:

Apparently Pastor Brooks is no stranger to issues involving politics and the church's money. I mentioned earlier his Christmas gift of $2000 to the discredited former mayor of Detroit, and looking a bit further:

2012 Email Claims Brooks Fundraiser is Fraudulent

Now, keep in mind, this is from 2012, before he started endorsing Republicans making contributions to his building funds. Also keep in mind that the website posting this email made a clear disclaimer that they had not verified the truth of the charges. But, either way, this does speak directly to Pastor Brooks' history and the controversy that has followed him.

From the note:



Pastor Corey B Brooks ... is catching heat from many of his congregants and colleagues for being absent from his church responsibilities ...





Some are even going so far as to say that Project Hood, the campaign started by Brooks to address violence in Chicago is nothing more than a Church Building Campaign.



Apparently, Tyler Perry gave $80,000 to the pastor to help his good work.

Now, these quotes above are actually the kind of thing I usually avoid because it's pure politics. "Some are saying" and "Many believe that" are pure political BS.

The only point I'm making is that this latest episode is not the first time the Pastor has been at the rodeo.
edit on 7Wed, 29 Oct 2014 07:52:29 -050014p0720141066 by Gryphon66 because: Removed the "royal we"



posted on Oct, 29 2014 @ 08:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
Normally this would warrant a loud laugh.

But it's serious.

A Pastor at a Chicago church has been harassed beyond belief after endorsing a Republican candidate for Illinois Governor !!

Not nice, but neither is the Chicago Democrat Machine.

The Chicago Democrats *ARE* the "Religion" !!



Corey Brooks, who is pastor of a church on Chicago’s South Side, has been beset with hundreds of death threats after endorsing a Republican for Illinois Governor in the upcoming election. His church has also been vandalized by the more adult, more caring, more tolerant Democrats in the Windy City.

Pastor Brooks has endorsed first-time politician, businessman and Republican Bruce Rauner for governor instead of life-long political insider and incumbent Democrat Governor Pat Quinn. But since he went very public with his endorsement–including appearing in TV ads for Rauner–Brooks has been under siege by those “tolerant” Democrats who wish death upon him.

His church was also vandalized this weekend and large amount of money earmarked for charities was stolen.

DEATH THREATS: Chicago black pastor forced to HIDE FAMILY after supporting Republican for governor



Dirty Politics at Work !!








It is the Chicago way.



posted on Oct, 29 2014 @ 08:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I have two basic issues with what currently passes as "Conservative" in this country: (1) belief-based/anti-science/anti-rational positions (2) rampant deceitfulness while claiming religious superiority.


Yes, it makes me ashamed to be put in the Conservative pool. Though I maintain that a true Libertarian is more split between Conservatives (fiscal Conservative) and Liberal (socially Liberal). The problem is that the likes of the Tea Party have blurred the lines of what true Libertarianism is. So most just assume we are extreme right wing kooks.


I grew up debating with true Conservatives, smart cookies who knew their stuff, had facts to back up every claim, were able to disagree without silly, irrational personal commentary, etc. It was a joy to argue and discuss with them.


Must have been nice... I grew up with my dad listening to Rush Limbaugh...


The extent of debate with most of the current crop are responses which are the equivalent of "I know you are, but what am I?"

It gets tiring and often seems pointless.


This is why my participation in political threads has dropped significantly. I am thankful for the Political Mudpit forum. Now all the trashy threads can be in one place, that I can ignore.
edit on 29-10-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2014 @ 08:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

There is only one justification for government headed into the future ... a centralized administrative locus for societal infrastructure - transportation, communication, security, defense, education, utilities, healthcare and social services, because a pure capitalistic/profit-based approach to most of those items is ludicrous, in my opinion.

A so-called mixed economy is necessary to balance between the needs of the many and the needs of the few.

I do agree with classic libertarianism though: you'd never even know that the ideal government was there.
edit on 8Wed, 29 Oct 2014 08:20:25 -050014p0820141066 by Gryphon66 because: Yep



posted on Oct, 29 2014 @ 08:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

I agree with your idea there. As a Libertarian, I recognize that some government is necessary. Government is necessary to provide protection from external threats to you, your family, your countrymen, and to the country. Government isn't necessary to protect you from yourself.



posted on Oct, 29 2014 @ 09:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Gryphon66

I recognize that some government is necessary. Government is necessary to provide protection from external threats to you, your family, your countrymen, and to the country. Government isn't necessary to protect you from yourself.


I second that.



posted on Oct, 29 2014 @ 10:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Gryphon66

I agree with your idea there. As a Libertarian, I recognize that some government is necessary. Government is necessary to provide protection from external threats to you, your family, your countrymen, and to the country. Government isn't necessary to protect you from yourself.


That's also a good way to say it.


Further I really would like to do away with elected government altogether in my imaginary future world, LOL.

I think we should all have to serve according to some schema at the local, State and Federal level, not unlike military service. That way it would more accurately be a government "of the People, by the People" and hopefully "for the People."

We've got to get the career politicians out of every "side" of our political lives as much as we can as soon as we can.

We have to stop living on credit, both individually and collectively.

Etc. etc.



posted on Oct, 29 2014 @ 11:03 AM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

The most important point was that large amounts of cash were stolen earmarked for charities...



posted on Oct, 29 2014 @ 11:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

You know what would be nice? Every so often, redrafting the Constitution to account for loopholes that unscrupulous people have used to circumvent liberty at the expense of the population. But unfortunately such a thing would be VERY open to manipulation by those very same unscrupulous people. Sometimes, I look at reality and realize how hopeless the ideal is.



new topics




 
21
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join