34 Replies to ““To Whom It May Concern””

        1. I laughed – about time that Wikipedia got its tax exempt status pulled – sanctimonious pseudo intellectuals.

          1. Every word they write about global warming is hardcore propaganda. And there is only ONE group who wants that narrative pushed with NO arguments to the contrary … one-world-governance socialists and communists.

      2. l hope youre right yw. l dont think so but this time tuesday we will know what to expect ‘for the next 4 years’

    2. I’m 50/50. I’ve been seeing contradictory polls that have not been reported in the MSM. I’ve also seen how the more conventional pollsters have been manipulating data (are you listening, Nick Nanos?) like over-sampling seniors and under-sampling younger voters; over-sampling the east while under-sampling the west; or over-sampling liberals while under-sampling conservatives, not to mention the really tiny sample sizes by region.
      There were also the “fly-by-night” pollsters… brand-new polling firms owned by liberals… affecting Canada338 aggregate polling.
      It’s also curious to me how the polls rapidly favored the liberals early on in the campaign after the Carney coronation, and tightened up as we got closer to election day. Is it because people are learning about Carney, or is it maybe because the pollsters are getting nervous about getting it totally wrong? They have a rep to protect, you know.
      Still, there has to be something the pollsters found that made them feel comfortable that they can get away with their push-polls meant solely to manipulate public opinion.
      My gut says “liberal minority” but I am not at all confident in making that prediction. I suppose we’ll find out soon enough.

      1. It’s also curious to me how the polls rapidly favored the liberals early on in the campaign after the Carney coronation, and tightened up as we got closer to election day.

        I believe the early high was legitimate because Prinz Dipshit of Blackface & Elbowgate was finally gone. It was a great big sigh of relief, even from the [spit] Progs. Kind of a political “dead cat bounce”. However, as this sh!tshow has progressed, lots of people are realizing that Marx Carnage is merely SSDD, if not worse. Hence the leveling off and the need for the pollsters to adjust.

        And, while the pollsters don’t want to portray themselves as the complete lying idiots they are, they are manipulating the numbers to give a positive spin for the Lieberals. I’m still dumbfounded that people would let their votes be affected by the results of a poll.

        I’m with yeahwell: I don’t trust the polls, either. Whether this turns into something less shitty (face it: none of the bastards are any good) remains to be seen.

        WEXIT for the win!!!

    3. We voted for our local Conservative rep on the first day of advance voting. That said we have little or no faith in the overall majority.

  6. Its always at the top of a search and i make a point of never using it …. fake info

  7. Charitable status should be revoked. Charities are a playground for the wealthy and well connected that just so happen to keep them wealthy and well connected. Eliminate tax exemption entirely.

    Combined with lowering taxes overall; the organizations that actually do good work will survive.

  8. Wow! “Shots fired” as they say.

    Don’t forget that that left wing loon who runs NPR (Katherine Maher) was the “former chief executive officer and executive director of the Wikimedia Foundation”. So, being a left wing loon, she was all too happy to let anti-American propaganda proliferate on Wikipedia.

  10. Exactly how much income tax would be gathered from taxing a non-profit organization? Non-profit meaning income=expenses. The answer would be none.

    1. How many of the “non-profit” organizations are actually non-profit?

      Additionally, if a “charity” loses their ability to issue receipts, the donations are no longer tax deductible.

    2. Yeah. So long as income = expenses, no need to even register as a “non-profit”, right?
      https://productmint.com/wikipedia-business-model-how-does-wikipedia-make-money/

      “The majority of the investments that Wikipedia (or rather the foundation) makes are held in fixed income and equity holdings.

      The foundation divides its investment portfolio into three distinct categories, namely:

      Level 1: investments in marketable securities, more specifically stocks and mutual funds
      Level 2: investments into corporate bonds, mortgage-backed securities, U.S. treasury securities, and more
      Level 3: so-called unobservable inputs, which are “assumptions about the factors that market participants would use in pricing the instrument” (whatever that means)”

      You are retarded.

  11. Just excise the whole section 501 of the tax code. No organization should be “tax exempt”

    1. Yah. How dare someone run a soup kitchen for the homeless without paying Big Brother his fair share?

      1. Well, there are organizations that actually have expenses that are equal to their income. If a soup kitchen has income over their expenses, perhaps they are a for profit business?

      2. yeahBUTT
        Soup kitchens only make things worst, they are like charities, and enable and encourage the whole homeless scam.

          1. gym hates anything, or anyone believing in Christ, regardless of the good works they do.

  12. Firstly, Wikipedia is quite profitable with a reserve in excess of $300M and annual revenue of $175M and lots of questionable expenditures.

    Secondly, and most importantly, if it loses its tax free status:
    1. that will be an incentive to reform to become more accurate and maybe have a business (not activist) Board and leadership team,
    2. that will mean that tax dollars (foregone) are not supporting a leftist misinformation platform
    3. its current status as a hopped up NGO is now being discussed

    1. I see no reason to assume that revocation of 501(c)(3) status should result in them becoming more accurate.
      Look at Google and Alphabet.

  13. in 2011 l was roundly chastised for citing wiki in a university research paper. sooooo the halls of higher learning have that on their side. unless its changed. maybe some of those grads are running things now, you know, reform from the inside

  15. At long last, a US administration merely enforcing existing laws, across many policy fronts;
    … “what enforcement mechanisms are in place to ensure compliance and accountability…?”

    That is the take-away question
    and applies to all policies of The Left,
    Plausible Liars who prefer require deceit over persuasion.

    This shot across their bow likely results in a court case, in which The Left is always better positioned to out-wait their honest opponents or, as the inclusion of concerns over Large Language Model companies reveals how far downstream the cancer has metastasized, Wikipedia has reached a point where they can afford to rid themselves of tax-exempt status.

  16. Wikipedia should have had their tax-exempt status pulled long ago, as they are utterly useless when it comes to information that is the least bit political. Forget about getting any unbiased gender or climate-related information.

    I once tried to find information on ClimateGate…what a mistake. After reading through a very long “move along, nothing to see here” article filled with obfuscation and excuses, I suddenly realized that the exact bit of info I was seeking (about the deliberate effort to keep unfriendly scientific papers from being published) was *not even there*. It’s a matter of record, and contained in every other account of the incident, but Wikipedia had removed that part entirely.

    I found out later that Wikipedia had a guy (I forget his name) there for years who would run around ‘re-editing’ any climate-related posts to remove any references that might tend to cast doubt on The Narrative.

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation