c.o.o.r.d.i.n.a.t.e.d

Entire police departments are not shut down because they are models of good policing.  That some of the officers then found homes in the Ferguson PD is even more of a lightning rod.

What have these police departments done since August to change the toxic atmosphere in these communities?  How have they reached out to the community, to show more alignment and less opposition?  How do you change an adversarial relationship to one of community?

 It's much harder to fight your friends than your enemies, easier to see the good in people if they show you that good.  John Doe is less likely to hurl objects at the police if the cop in his line of sight is the cop who came and talked to his son's school, organized a food drive or showed up with his cop friends to refurbish a playground.  When you are face-to-face with someone with whom you have stood shoulder-to-shoulder, I have to think the potential for violence is much lower.

Maybe that kind of thing has been happening in the greater Ferguson area, but if so, it must be happening on the DL.

In the meantime, when a line about protecting people's civil rights and right to peacefully assemble is sandwiched in between what sounds like a call to arms and promise to use force, it doesn't feel like anyone's rights are at the top of the priority list.

   It would take a  huge abandonment by Dems and  joining an override is even more of a slap than a vote on the pre-veto  passage.

  That doesn't mean it won't eventually be built, because the bill isn't an  up or down on the project but an attempt to force  a bypass of the normal procedure needed for approval.

Hoeven said he believes a GOP-controlled Senate may be able to marshall the 67 votes needed to override a presidential veto of the pipeline, if it comes to that

Through my own consulting work with not-for-profit chartitable organizations, as well as my extracurricular political activities, I'm pretty familiar with the non-profit classifications under 501(c) federal law. It is the 501(c)(3) classification which specifically addresses the tax-exempt status of charitable organizations, as well as scientific, religious, literary, amateur sports and child / animal cruelty organizations. And still another law, 501(c)(6), exempts chambers of commerce, business leagues and guilds, trade organizations and real estate boards from taxation.

(Here's how the IRS differentiates 501(c)(3) organizations from 501(c)(4) organizations.)

That said, it's also pretty clear that the IRS took it upon itself to offer a much more expansive view of the 501(c)(4) law, than was likely the original congressional intent. Here's how Congress originally and specifically defined a 501(c)(4) organization:

"Civic leagues or organizations not organized for profit but operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare." (Emphasis is mine.)

And here's how, 55 years ago and without any congressional authorization to do so, the IRS re-defined a 501(c)(4) organization by carving out its own huge loophole in the law, so that one could practically drive a truck through the word "exclusively":

"To be operated exclusively to promote social welfare, an organization must operate primarily to further the common good and general welfare of the people of the community." (Emphasis is mine.)

For the purposes of practicing the politics of cynicism to its fullest extent, obtaining a 501(c)(4) classification for one's organization is much more preferable to a 527-class certification, i.e., political action committees (PACs) and SuperPACs, because while the latter is required by law to disclose its donors, a 501(c)(4)-class organization does not have to do so.

It's therefore hardly surprising that in the immediate wake of SCOTUS's Citizens United decision, politically-related expenditures by so-called "social welfare not-for-profit organizations" during the 2010 midterms were over 50% greater than those by PACs and SuperPACs, and further accounts for over 60% of all politically-related expenditures by non-candidate committees.

And finally, for purposes of your discussion with Slado, both Al Sharpton's Political Action Network and the Tea Party / Tea Party Express have been defined by the IRS as 501(c)(4) social welfare organizations.

As far as I can tell from the foundation's 900 filings, such funds are not recycled to individuals or the NRA proper, nor are they used for purposes of lobbying and "promotion of the social welfare" -- that is, politics.

I probably don't care for the National Rifle Association any more than do you, but I've got to be fair here. As a matter of personal disclosure, I've consulted with organizations that have applied for and received grant funding from the NRA Foundation. Further, many large corporations such as WalMart also maintain affiliated charitable organizations.

We should always keep in mind that while the corporate Mother Ship itself may be a truly detestable entity, its 501(c)(3) charitable affiliate may have an entirely separate mission, and as such it likely does good work in the communities it serves.

After all, the steel magnate Andrew Carnegie was a ruthless corporate magnate in his lifetime, who had some questionable business ethics, engaged in some very detestable corporate practices, and was generally no friend of labor. But Carnegie also once said about personal wealth: "The man who dies rich, also dies in disgrace." His personal philosophy of philanthropy, as summed up in his essay "The Gospel of Wealth," is worth a read.

And in that regard, I'd note that both Carnegie and his charitable arm, the Carnegie Foundation, provided the original endowment for many of this country's various public library systems, which ultimately funded the construction of nearly 1,700 libraries across the states and territories, a number of which still exist today.

  You and Donald may disagree with the definition of "social welfare" or disagree with the tax status accorded such organizations, but you both seem more opposed to one particular group with which you disagree qualifying for (c)(4) status-- because you don't like its goals. You should bear in mind there are also certainly many groups whose aims you do support that get the same treatment and also engage in similar political activity.

 You might also recall we have this obscure thing called a Constitution that prohibits the government from discriminating between groups in according benefits based on the nature of their political aims.