Trump Files With FEC For 2020 Election Bid, Outmaneuvers Nonprofit Organizations

Image result for trump files for reelectiondocument from the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) indicates that Donald Trump took steps last week to outmaneuver nonprofit organizations, leaving them unable to officially campaign against him over the next few years of his Presidency.

Filed on January 20th, 2017, the letter states that, while not an official announcement for reelection, Donald Trump has filed an FEC Form 2 in order to “ensure compliance with the Federal Election Campaign Act.” This is an unprecedented, although legal, move for the President to make. Barack Obama did not file for his 2012 re-election bid until April 2011. Having filed (even if not formally announcing a bid) as a candidate, Trump would be able to coordinate with PACs and other similar organizations.

More importantly, 501(c)(3) nonprofit organizations would no longer be able to engage in “political speech” which could theoretically affect the results of the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election without running the risk of losing their nonprofit status. The move effectively bars interest groups from creating nonprofits which they could funnel money into for the purposes of opposing Trump’s initiatives. This will likely create chaos for political opponents of Trump such as George Soros, who has sunk significant amounts of money into various nonprofit groups with the intent of opposing Trump’s government. How 501(c)(3) organizations will comply with the FEC’s regulations when participating an actions which qualify as political speech remains to be seen.

read more:

Views: 884

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

How would this effect churches

Interesting question, Baxter.

Considering that while President Trump was on the campaign trail, one of his many promises was to repeal the Johnson amendment and give freedom back to the pulpits of America's churches.

If he indeed does repeal it, then I cannot see this decision affecting churches in a negative way.  I believe it is primarily aimed at the special interest groups and PACs which fund political organizations (ie George Soros and the likes.)

It will be interesting to see the fall-out legally with churches if the Johnson amendment is not overturned.  Many in the church were great supporters of Mr. Trump in his bid to become President.  If he were to turn his back on them now, I don't think he would need to consider running for re-election.  For what it's worth, I think his legal team has more than likely already thought this through and we'll see the Johnson deal brought up in the not too distant future.

Great question though - you beat me to it.  :)

Churches aren"t supposed to preach politics from the pulpit, although that's exactly what Obama's church did (Rev. Wright).  But also we have a different DoJ and IRS who won't be pushing for ministers sermons and whatnot. The big reason why the Obama administration went after churches was because they preached AGAINST liberal policies and social engineering experiments, so Democrats came down on them to silence them.We have a God-friendly administration so I see this going nowhere fast.

Jeanne   You are bringing up the supposed "separation of church and state", which is no where in our founding documents. This is a lie from the left designed to shut Christians up, just like the attacks from the left on Christian beliefs and actions held or done by small business owners. Our founders promoted God in all areas of life, right on down to sermons being published in the newspapers and funding Bibles to put in the schools to teach kids by. The A, B, and C's were taught through Christian nursery rhymes.

The most important structures of our government came from the Bible, it was the most referenced book (over 33%) by the founders. They considered the Law of Nature and Nature's God in the D of I to be an oath to God, which is also why the documents include oaths, which they considered to be to God, not to man.

The success of this lie/deception is exactly what has helped bring about the delusion that all religions are equal, if someone can't speak about Jesus, then why not believe they are all equal? How would anyone know? It has also brought about complete ignorance of our Christian founding, because Pastor's don't teach it, so how would people know? Pastor's don't even teach a true Biblical world view. They won't and they don't. It has also brought about the "victim" sympathy for Syrians, instead of a correct understanding of what islam/muslims really believe and what they read in their books and writings.

The founders believed, and acted, upon the wisdom that comes from Absolute Truth. His.


Jea9, the restriction on churches engaging in partisan political speech, which I believe they should do based on biblical truths, stems from the Faustian Bargain with the Infernal Retribution Sackers (IRS).

The 501(c)3 tax exemption is simply a contract where for the right of churches and other such organizations not to pay the state a fee they agree to curtailment of their 1st Amendment rights. Personally I believe churches should forego the 501(c)3 status and speak loudly and openly about politicians and public policies from a biblical worldview.

As for "a wall of separation between church and state," it was written by Jefferson in defending a Baptist church from the state which had a state religion. The view was that the state had no right to EITHER establish a religion or to prohibit it. It's a one-way street. As with all the other Amendments in the Bill of Rights, the 1st Amendment limits the government, not individual citizens. Thus, people of faith individually and collectively have a GOD-given right to influence the state for good UNLESS they make an ill advised commitment not to for monetary considerations.

As you wrote, "The founders believed, and acted, upon the wisdom that comes from Absolute Truth. His."


Roberto—I believe we are under maybe many spirits of deception that have led America to believe untruths. If the D of I is the foundation of our rights as it states, under God, then these rights are then specified by the Constitution, then the truth of the D of I lies in the Law of Nature and Nature's God. If that is the foundation, then all laws must subordinate to the LONANG in the D of I, or they are illegal. Since the Bible is the source for both vertical and horizontal jurisdictions of law, then this applies also to city, district and state, as well as federal.

This also means, proven by non-law, is the Roe v Wade decision by SCOTUS.

There is no Roe law.

There is also no Obergefell law. And as a matter of fact, there IS DOMA, still the law of the land, except for that itty bitty factoid that man cannot define that which God created, so even that is illegal.

A true understanding that law is law and non law is non law, means that there is no right to homosexual marriage, and there is no right to abortion.

And there is no ability of the Infernal Retribution Sackers to sack/hack churches, christians, etc.

This is the land I live in, ha. Just say it ain't so and it ain't.

So, btw, when IS America just going to collectively say to SCOTUS, "You DON'T write law!"  ?

In my opinion churches should preach politics more often from the pulpit.  We need to hear support for politicians that abide by Christian principals. 

America has never seen anything like this is amazing to witness the rise of America

Very good far sighted move!

Enforcement may be a problem if Trump doesn't clean out the IRS agents ... He must have his people review the non-profit status of leftist organizations... revoking their status on the first offense.  If he leaves it up to those now running the IRS 501-C3 program nothing will happen.

The current IRS is more insidious than that, they will shut down all conservative organizations, but leave the liberals untouched.

This is why it's imperative Trump's team overhaul Obama's IRS...




Political Cartoons by Tom Stiglich

Political Cartoons by Michael RamirezPolitical Cartoons by Bob Gorrell


YIKES!!! Chelsea Clinton Emphatically States A Person With A Beard And A Penis Can ‘Absolutely’ Identify As A Woman

  • The one issue Hillary and Chelsea don’t appear to agree on entirely is transgender self-identification
  • In an interview with The Sunday Times, journalist Decca Aitkenhead asked the Clintons about transgender self-identification
  • Chelsea Clinton replied ‘yes’ emphatically when asked if someone with a beard and penis can ever be a woman
  • ‘It’s going to take a lot more time and effort to understand what it means to be defining yourself differently,’ Hillary said
  • Aitkenhead said Hillary became ‘uneasy’ when the question was asked while Chelsea shot a ‘furious stare’ at the journalist as her mother answered
  • Hillary added: ‘It’s a very big generational discussion, because this is not something I grew up with or ever saw’

(Daily Mail) – It may appear Hillary and Chelsea Clinton always see eye-to-eye, but in a recent interview one topic cracked the facade of the like-minded mother-daughter power duo.

The one issue Hillary and Chelsea don’t appear to agree on entirely is transgender self-identification.

In an interview with The Sunday Times, journalist Decca Aitkenhead asked the Clintons if someone with a beard and a penis can ever be a woman, to which Chelsea replied emphatically, ‘Yes.’

However, as Aitkenhead describes it, Hillary looked ‘uneasy’, and blamed generational gaps for being less accepting.

‘Errr. I’m just learning about this,’ Hillary responded. ‘It’s a very big generational discussion, because this is not something I grew up with or ever saw. It’s going to take a lot more time and effort to understand what it means to be defining yourself differently.’

The Clintons sat sown with Aitkenhead to promote the book they co-authored, The Book of Gutsy Women: Favorite Stories of Courage and Resilience.

The book features Danica Roem, the first trans woman elected to a U.S. state legislature.

According Aitkenhead’s account, she tells Hillary during the interview that many British feminists of Hillary’s generation have a problem with the idea that a ‘lesbian who doesn’t want to sleep with someone who has a penis is transphobic.’

Hillary nods in agreement, while Chelsea ‘stiffens and stares at me’, according to Aitkenhead.

The journalist then adds that many women of Hillary’s generation are uncomfortable with biological males sharing women’s bathrooms.

‘I would say that, absolutely,’ Hillary nods firmly. ‘Absolutely. Yes.’

That’s when Chelsea begins shooting a ‘furious stare’ at Aitkenhead, who points it out to her.

‘I’m a terrible actor’, Chelsea laughs.

Chelsea then says she is thrilled with the National Health Service’s decision to assign patients to single-sex wards according to the gender they identify as, instead of their biological make up.

‘How can you treat someone if you don’t recognize who they feel and know in their core they are?’ Chelsea says.

‘And I strongly support children being able to play on the sports teams that match their own gender identity,’ she adds. ‘I think we need to be doing everything we can to support kids in being whoever they know themselves to be and discovering who they are.’

At this point Hillary looks conflicted.

‘I think you’ve got to be sensitive to how difficult this is,’ Hillary says. ‘There are women who’d say [to a trans woman], ”You know what, you’ve never had the kind of life experiences that I’ve had. So I respect who you are, but don’t tell me you’re the same as me.” I hear that conversation all the time.’

Despite the clear tension in the room, the pair say they don’t argue about this topic.

But according to Aitkenhead, ‘I get the impression they don’t like to present anything less than a united front to the world.’


© 2019   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service