Morning update: And your childish accusation DQs you from further comment at this post.

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.

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.

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.

Source:
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/rr2007-41.pdf

Situation 21. Church P, a section 501(c)(3) organization, maintains a web site that includes such information as biographies of its ministers, times of services, details of community outreach programs, and activities of members of its congregation. B, a member of the congregation of Church P, is running for a seat on the town council. Shortly before the election, Church P posts the following message on its web site, “Lend your support to B, your fellow parishioner, in Tuesday’s election for town council.” Church P has intervened in a political campaign on behalf of B.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.