I think that’s “Hummers”.
But I could be wrong. Maybe there is an army of MC Hammer clones wearing camouflage parachute pants in stasis pods waiting for the command to strike.
I’d say the sensible response to the repeal of the Johnson Amendment would be for any political organization to reorganize as a church. Then our contributions to the Democratic and Republican Churches would be tax-deductible. 
Fleet of Hummers. Like the real Hum Vees, not the fraternity bro H2 but the expensive Stephen Spielberg ones. Think military, but all decked out on the inside with stereos and TV screens and the like.
You were right. Now I feel that a ready and waiting army of MC Hammers would be a kick ass thing, and I would support the tax exempt status of any churches maintaining a troop that is too legit to quit.
“Hummers” does make more sense.
But if you had a whole fleet of MC Hammers in stasis, would you have to keep them on Vanilla Ice?
prepares the warrant for luci’s signature
Keep in mind that this has nothing, literally, to do with the institutions being a church. It’s about institutions being non-profit organizations. To maintain the non-profit status, and thus the tax exemption, the institution must not engage in participation in political campaigns to influence elections.
Yeah, what repealing this legislation would mean is that all 501©(3) organizations would be allowed to endorse and campaign for candidates, while remaining tax-exempt institutions.
Because Super PACs aren’t enough of an avenue for unlimited political spending.
It’s part of the tax code. Trump can’t change that, but Congress can. It would not surprise me if a Republican Controlled Congress were to propose its repeal, although they have not done so in the past. The Democrats can still block it in the Senate, of course. I don’t think there is any polling on this out yet, but I suspect there will be shortly.
Personally, I’m not keen on the idea of Preachers telling their flock whom to vote for, but one has to wonder how many of those Church goers don’t already know who would get the endorsement.
For the big donors who donate millions without tax benefit to PACs who support their candidates, can they then just donate those millions instead as tax deductible donations to the “Church of Republicanism” or the “Church of Elect John Smith”?
I am okay with this for two reasons.
First, I think it will speed up the secularization of America, as marginal church-goers watch their reverends, pastors and ministers become nakedly political.
Second, Pope Francis would be able to give some very useful instructions to American Catholic priests.
I mean, what’s your upside? The clergymen in small communities probably tell their parishioners who to vote for as soon as they file out the church door - or are the sort of people who don’t talk about politics. I’m telling you, for most people, if they find their current church irreconcilable with their politics, they are going to find a new church.
I think if this one goes through, it backfires, big time.
The single, most important political issue for the RCC wrt the US political system is abortion. Il Papa will generally endorse the pro-life candidates.
Actually, I suspect Pope Francis will decline to interfere in elections. US Bishops, OTOH, will probably be quite interested in jumping into the fray.
To the best of my knowledge, here is nothing preventing the Pope from endorsing a candidate, unless there is some Vatican law against it.
Hear me out. The archdioceses of the United States are separate corporations. For example in Illinois they are corporations sole. So, for example, if an archdiocese loses a whopping child-abuse lawsuit, the Vatican or the rest of the country does not have to chip in to pay it. That one archdiocese files for bankruptcy and moves on. As long as the archdiocese does not engage in politics, no US law has been violated.
And it’s quite easy to get around the restriction. Simply pass out pamphlets called “Voting and the Catholic conscience” that say “a Catholic cannot in good conscience vote for a candidate who supports abortion” but does not mention any names or parties.
And, finally, there is nothing preventing popes, priests, or bishops from endorsing a candidate as a private citizen on their own time. That is protected by the First Amendment. A bishop cannot endorse a candidate in a church, but he is free to go to a television station and express his political views there, as is any other citizen.
The Left recognizes that this amendment also applies to mosques, temples, and synagogues.
I’m surprised The Right isn’t worried that once all these Muslims take over they won’t use their influence on any more incoming Kenyan Muslim presidents who stole elections.
Donald Trump still has a financial interest in The Apprentice. (He is credited as executive producer.)
He and Arnold have been staging a fake Twitter feud since the beginning of the season as a way of generating publicity for the show, much like WWE wrestlers.
The remark at the prayer breakfast was just part of the publicity campaign for the show. And it worked better than anyone could have imagined. Every news show in the country broadcast the remarks and many showed clips of Arnold on the show. Priceless free publicity for the show!
Trump may not be able to unilaterally change the tax code, but surely he can unilaterally decline to enforce it.
Some Christians believe that Rapture will occur before tribulations and the martyrs and saints will be left here on earth to try to bring those last few remaining people capable of salvation into the fold. And you’re gonna want Humvees for that.
In the past, I would not have disputed that. These days, under Francis? Don’t think so. With the allowing of forgiveness for abortion to the laser-focus on poverty that Francis has shown, I think he’s more likely to endorse a Democratic candidate than a Republican.
I thought I remembered that this amendment isn’t really enforced much anyway, and NPR agrees (see point 5 here): The Johnson Amendment In 5 Questions And Answers : NPR