Couldn’t Help But Notice (030208)
It appears that CBS’s 60 Minutes has, once again, has broadcast a bogus story about a Republican politician based on the story of a serial liar — and, again, did not do basic following up and fact-checking. Who believes any of this network’s original work any more?
Update, 11:40 a.m.: Michelle Malkin — “If 60 Minutes had an iota of credibility left after Rathergate, that last remnant is now gone….. Give thanks for the Internet.”
_____________________________________________
Patrick Poole has e-mail evidence that a volunteer campaign official working for the candidate I refer to as BOOHOO (Barack O-bomba Overseas Hussein “Obambi” Obama) is “calling for volunteers to spread out to all of the area mosques in Central Ohio for afternoon prayers to bring in the vote …..” Those who objected to World Harvest Church’s ties to Ken Blackwell’s Ohio gubernatorial campaign in 2006 haven’t been heard from.
Update: Clarification of the source added. A “volunteer” can be and often is a campaign official. I will rely on the link’s characterization of that person as such until someone proves the that the e-mail’s author isn’t carrying out an “official” assignment.
_____________________________________________
IBDeditorials.com on NAFTA (HT Instapundit):
….. the NAFTA pact wasn’t shoved through by fiat. It was negotiated over years by the Clinton administration, with major input from both Republican and Democratic Congresses.
Everyone got his or her say at the time, and after many debates, the agreement passed both houses in late 1993.Unlike our trade with China, which is subject to tariffs but contains no major labor or environmental demands, NAFTA did include labor and environmental standards, with the trade-off for Mexico and Canada being the permanence of the treaty.
Subsequent ones, such as 2007’s Peru free trade agreement, and the nearly identical pending Colombia pact, required even tougher labor and environmental standards to ensure passage.
….. Threatening to renege on a permanent treaty — as Clinton and Obama are doing through their identical vows to “opt out” of the deal — signals loudly that America’s word is no longer its bond. A permanent pact with the U.S., it turns out, isn’t so permanent.
An approach like that toward our treaty partners sends a chilling signal to our friends. It’s Obama and Clinton who need to cool it.
Ohio Democrats who are claiming NAFTA is to blame for the state’s economic problems need to tell me how it can be that next-door Indiana is doing relatively well. A mini-update to that post is that Hoosier state unemployment was 5.1% in December; Ohio’s was 6.0%.
You wrote that it was Obama, himself, that called for “volunteers to spread out to all of the area mosques…” The linked post claims it was an “Obama campaign official” who did it. According to the email, you are both wrong, because the sender indicates he is “Volunteering for Barack Obama.”
This situation is not at all similar to that of the World Harvest Church, as mosque officials and resources are not involved. If you believe there is a law or IRS regulation against what is proposed in that email, I’d like to see it.
Comment by Tony B. — March 2, 2008 @ 1:56 pm
#1, I have clarified the source to a reasonable person’s satisfaction.
I have made no reference to campaign laws or IRS regs, and am under no obligation to comment on them. You also had no reason to change the subject. Your complaint is with Mr. Poole and not with me, and there is no further reason for you to respond to that portion of this post.
Comment by TBlumer — March 2, 2008 @ 2:22 pm
Huffington Post ran some vulgarity-laced rebutal to the Powerline Blog rundown of the 60 Minutes segment on Karl Rove’s supposed involvement in the investigation of Don Siegelman.
The Huffington Post basically argues that Rove once worked with Alabama Republicans so he must be involved and he and his wife bought a beach house in Florida that is less than 1 hour from Alabama by plane! That’s the smoking gun right there!
If only Rove and his wife had contacted Tony Rezko beforehand, he would have bought them the adjacent beach front property at no extra charge, I’m sure.
Comment by Brian — March 2, 2008 @ 5:49 pm
In reply to the first comment, the “Volunteering for Barack Obama” in the subject line doesn’t refer to the sender of the email, but the recipients (which I removed). Additional correspondence, which I have not posted, indicates that Mr. Khan is running the OSU Obama office.
Yes, this is nothing like the World Harvest claims, because the IRS would have pulled their tax exempt status if the “We Believe” clerics had discovered an effort by an elected official (say, Ken Blackwell) to target churches to distribute campaign literature. It’s hard to imagine a more blatant disregard of IRS regulations about campaigning in tax exempt institutions. But it’s Obama we’re talking about, and he’s the messiah who is going to save us, so it’s all OK. Laws don’t apply to him.
Comment by Patrick Poole — March 2, 2008 @ 6:22 pm
Mr. Poole,
Tom tells me my complaint is with you. I only partially agree because I never would have laid eyes on your sorry site if not for his link on this “business” blog. If Mr. Kahn is more than a volunteer, I apologize, but I doubt it is necessary.
If you believe there is a law or IRS regulation prohibiting behavior proposed in that email, please share that law or regulation with us.
Comment by Tony B. — March 2, 2008 @ 10:14 pm
Not that Patrick needs the help, but this was too easy.
Source:
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/rr2007-41.pdf
Now, in this example, it doesn’t really matter that B is a member of the congregation.
If the above jeopardizes the church’s 501(c)(3) status, how much more obvious is it that the church can’t allow electioneers to openly engage in electioneering on church property (from the e-mail — “when people are socializing outside …. pass out Obama civil rights literature, faith based literature, general literature, stickers and bumper stickers. In addition we want the volunteers to emphasize that the election is the following Tuesday and encourage them to vote.”)?
I suppose one attempted defense will be that they aren’t “encouraging them to vote” for Obama, to which, given the lit passed out, my response (and more than the likely, the IRS’s) would be “give me a bleeping break.”
The next would be that the mosque didn’t know such electioneering would occur. But they would have to show that they shooed the electioneers from the property as soon as they became aware of what was happening.
Now clerics often have better things to do after services than monitor the conduct of all present, or they may not be conversant with all of the IRS regs. So it’s possible that such electioneering may not be stopped — in which case Mr. Kahn’s activities will have left the mosque open to an IRS complaint. What a pal.
Comment by TBlumer — March 2, 2008 @ 11:26 pm
#3, that’s an open and shut case if I’ve ever seen one (/sarc).
Comment by TBlumer — March 2, 2008 @ 11:30 pm
#2 Tom,
How did I “change the subject?” You wrote, “Those who objected to World Harvest Church’s ties to Ken Blackwell’s Ohio gubernatorial campaign in 2006 haven’t been heard from.”
If you read the article you linked to, “those who objected” filed a complaint with the IRS because IRS regulations had been violated. Why would you expect to hear from “those who objected” unless laws or IRS regulations have been violated?
I know you won’t respond, but you could at least let this through your filter. I always try to be accurate and respectful, and I wouldn’t read you if I thought you had nothing to offer.
Comment by Tony B. — March 2, 2008 @ 11:31 pm
#8, there was a general “separation of church and state” objection to the propriety of Blackwell’s relationship with World Harvest apart from the details of IRS regs.
The same people who object to what WH was doing NEVER have a problem with Dem candidates speaking in front of African-American and liberal congregations.
All I originally commented on was propriety — deliberately. But - as usual - you’ve demanded that the bloody obvious be shown to you.
Comment by TBlumer — March 2, 2008 @ 11:38 pm
#6, Tom,
Aside from the fact that Obama is not a member of any mosque and this situation doesn’t involve a mosque posting a message of support for him on a web site, nor does it involve a mosque endorsing or enabling the Obama candidacy in any other way, I’m sure the IRS reg that you’ve cited is extremely relevant, somehow. Which is to say, huh?
This regulation involves wrongdoing by tax-exempts. No suggestion of that was ever made by Mr. Poole, the source of you original post.
Is it possible you and Mr. Poole just enjoy writing “Obama” and “mosque” in the same sentence? Obama, as I am sure you know, is a Christian.
Comment by Tony B. — March 3, 2008 @ 12:48 am
You can’t seem to comprehend the obvious. Therefore, I won’t respond.
Morning update: And your childish accusation DQs you from further comment at this post.
Comment by TBlumer — March 3, 2008 @ 2:35 am