IRS and Church Cartoon

Why I stand with Liberty University's Jerry Falwell, Jr. on guns

I stand with Jerry Falwell, Jr.
And like the president of Liberty University, I am proud to call myself a gun-toting, Bible-clinging American patriot. 
President Falwell is facing criticism from Democrats and jihadist sympathizers after he urged students at the nation’s largest Christian university to carry concealed weapons on campus to counter any possible armed attack from jihadists.
Click here to get Todd’s American Dispatch - a must-read for Conservatives! 

Sometimes I wonder who hates Christians more — the mainstream media or the Islamic jihadists.

“Let’s teach them a lesson if they ever show up here,” Falwell told thousands of cheering students during convocation. 
"I've always thought if more good people had concealed carry permits, then we could end those Muslims before they walked in," Falwell said.
He told the Associated Press on Saturday he was specifically referring to Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik, the couple who shot and killed 14 people during a holiday party in a Southern California office building Wednesday.
Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe criticized Falwell’s remarks, saying in a statement to The Washington Post those comments were “rash and repugnant.”
“My administration is committed to making Virginia an open and welcoming Commonwealth, while also ensuring the safety of all of our citizens. Mr. Falwell’s rash and repugnant comments detract from both of those crucial goals,” McAuliffe said.
Hillary Clinton went so far as to accuse Falwell of giving “aid and comfort” to the Islamic State. 
“This is the kind of deplorable not only hateful response to a legitimate security issue,” Clinton told ABC News. “But it is giving aid and comfort to ISIS and other radical jihadists.”
Get a load of the crackpot theory offered up by one left-wing newspaper: 
“Some theologians believe that Jesus would call on Christians to put down their weapons in the face of violence.”
I only wish the Washington Post had named the lunatic theologians who believe that Christians should gladly offer themselves to the Islamic radicals as sacrificial lambs.
Does the mainstream media suggest that Christians should not protect their families from harm? Do they suggest that Christians should not serve in the military or law enforcement? 
In the warped world of American journalism -- is there any instance in which people of faith would be allowed to defend themselves against the sword of the radical Muslims? 
Sometimes I wonder who hates Christians more — the mainstream media or the Islamic jihadists. 
Christians are a good-hearted people. If you are down on your luck, there’s always a church willing to lend you a helping hand.
If you get hungry, we’ll fix you a plate of chicken. If you’re thirsty, we’ll pour you a glass of tea. If you need some clothes or some gas money to get you where you’re going we’ll take care of that, too.
We rebuild homes washed away by the floods. We look after the widows and orphans. We tend to the sick and afflicted. 
We are slow to anger. 
Over the past few years we have seen the Islamic radicals wage jihad across the fruited plain. We have seen the jihadists spill American blood on American soil. They have terrorized our people -- from Boston to Fort Hood to Chattanooga to San Bernardino.
We have watched as the jihadists beheaded our brothers and sisters in foreign lands. We have watched as churches have been destroyed, parishioners crucified. 
Slow to anger, indeed. But there is anger nonetheless. 
President Falwell’s admonition was made out of prudence, not anger. The enemy is now beyond the gate. They live among us.
And should the Islamic radicals wage jihad in your town -- I suspect most Americans would want to share a foxhole with someone like Jerry Falwell, Jr. — armed with a Bible in one hand and a gun in the other.

IRS proposes churches, other nonprofits get Social Security numbers from donors

An Obama administration proposal to have some nonprofit charities report the Social Security numbers of donors giving at least $250 in one year is raising concerns about security, government overreach and another episode of IRS targeting.
“There's a big caution here. There's a big yellow light that should be flashing for a couple of reasons,” Illinois Republican Rep. Peter Roskam tells Fox News.
“Number one, the IRS has not demonstrated its capacity to hold this type of information from confidentiality and a security point of view.”
The change would impact organizations that fall into the 501 (c)(3) category, which includes churches and other religious or charitable groups.
The Internal Revenue Service states the proposed change would be optional. But skeptics question whether it will eventually become the only option.
“It's the No. 1 regulation that people are commenting upon,” attorney Cleta Mitchell recently told Fox News.
Mitchell argues that the IRS cannot be trusted and that the change could have a devastating impact on charities’ ability to collect enough money to survive.
“It would have a dramatic effect on donors' decisions on whether or not to contribute,” she said. “You'd see a lot of $249.99 contributions to every charitable organization in America. It's preposterous.”
The IRS has responded to such arguments by recently releasing a statement that attempts to clarify “major misimpressions and inaccuracies.”
The agency said the change was proposed in September in part because some taxpayers who were being audited -- or “under exam” -- say they lost their donation records and that charities also having a record would help them verify deductions.
“This project was prompted because some … organizations and donors were interested in using this option,” the agency stated. “This proposal would impose no mandatory changes to existing rules.”
Mitchell represents the conservative-leaning group TRUE the VOTE, which says it has already been harassed by the IRS, the federal government’s tax collector.
The agency admitted in 2013 that it had from roughly April 2010 to April 2012 targeted Tea Party and other conservative-leaning groups applying for tax-exempt status.
Some of those groups included those under the 501(c)(3) status.
That tax-exempt status strictly forbids them from participating in political campaigns, though they can spend a fraction of their efforts on such activities as lobbying on legislative issues and holding forums and publishing voter-registration records.
The 2013 revelation led to the firing of an IRS commissioner and probes by the Justice Department, Congress and others. However, no criminal charges were brought.
The deadline is Dec. 16 to submit public comment to the IRS on the proposed change.
Roskam also argues that the request for a full Social Security number comes at a time when banks, utilities, cable TV companies and others are asking customers for only the last four numbers, amid widespread identity theft.
“When the whole rest of the world from a technological view is moving away from using Social Security numbers, the IRS is moving toward them,” he said. “I think we ought not go that route right now.”
Roskam and others are also concerned about the nonprofit groups’ ability to protect the private information they will collect from donors.
“Charities are not well equipped to deal with this,” he said. “We've had for-profit companies -- some of the biggest companies in the world -- that have spent millions and millions and millions of dollars trying to protect their confidential data. And it's been hacked and it's been breached.”

Iran tests another mid-range ballistic missile in breach of UN resolutions

Obama was told over and over this would happen. So whats new.

Iran has carried out a new medium range ballistic missile test in breach of two United Nations Security Council resolutions, a senior U.S. official told Fox News on Monday.
Western intelligence says the test was held Nov. 21 near Chabahar, a port city in southeast Iran’s Sistan and Baluchestan Province near the border with Pakistan.  The launch took place from a known missile test site along the Gulf of Oman.
The missile, known as a Ghadr-110, has a range of 1,800 – 2000 km, or 1200 miles, and is capable of carrying a nuclear warhead. The missile fired in November is an improved version of the Shahab 3, and is similar to the precision guided missile tested by Iran on Oct. 10, which elicited strong condemnation from members of the U.N. Security Council.
“The United States is deeply concerned about Iran's recent ballistic missile launch," Samantha Power, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., said in a statement after the last Iranian ballistic missile test in October.
President Obama mentioned the Iranian missile test during a press conference on Oct. 16 and said the United States was preparing to brief the U.N. sanctions committee. He added that it would not derail the nuclear deal.
"I think what we'll be doing is we'll review, as we have in the past, any violations of U.N. resolutions, and we'll deal with them much as we have in the past," Obama said of the October incident.
A senior administration official told Fox News on Monday the White House
was "aware" of reports of the missile test, but had "no further comment
at this time."
Iran appears to be in a race against the clock to improve the accuracy of its ballistic missile arsenal in the wake of the nuclear agreement signed in July.
One day after Tehran and six world powers signed that nuclear accord, the UN passed resolution 2231, which compels Iran to refrain from any work on ballistic missiles for 8 years. UN Security Council Resolution 1929 was passed in 2010 and bans Iran from conducting ballistic missile tests.

The Security Council is still debating how to respond to Iran's last test in October.

Trump calls for 'complete shutdown' on Muslims entering US

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump defended his decision Monday to call for a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States,” touching off an outraged response from his rivals for the nomination and Muslim groups.
“We have no idea who is coming into our country, no idea if they like us or hate us,” Trump told supporters in South Carolina. “I wrote something today that is very salient…and probably not very politically correct. But I don’t care.”
Trump added that his proposal is “common sense” and “we have no choice”.  He warned the crowd that “we can be politically correct and stupid but it’s going to get worse and worse.”
The proposed ban would stand "until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on," his campaign said in a statement earlier Monday.
The statement added that Trump's proposal comes in response to the level of hatred among "large segments of the Muslim population" toward Americans.
It also comes five days after a radical Muslim couple killed 14 people and injured 21 at a Christmas party in San Bernardino, Calif.
“Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life,” Trump said in a statement.
A recent Fox News poll found that both a majority of Democrats and Republicans believe at least one Syrian refugee coming into the U.S. will likely carry out an attack.
Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski told the Associated Press that Trump's proposed ban would apply to "everybody," including Muslims seeking immigration visas as well as tourists seeking to enter the country.
Trump did not respond to questions about whether any ban would also include Muslims who are U.S. citizens and travel outside the country - or how a determination of someone's religion might be made by customs and border officials.
In response to a request for additional detail, Trump said via a campaign spokeswoman: "Because I am so politically correct, I would never be the one to say. You figure it out!"
Meanwhile, his rivals for the Republican nomination wasted no time weighing in.
"Donald Trump is unhinged," Jeb Bush said via Twitter. "His `policy' proposals are not serious."
Carly Fiorina said, "Trump's overreaction is as dangerous as President Obama's under-reaction."
John Kasich slammed Trump's "outrageous divisiveness," while a more measured Ted Cruz, who has always been cautious about upsetting Trump's supporters, said, "Well, that is not my policy."
Southern Baptists denounced Trump's comment.
“Anyone who cares an iota about religious liberty should denounce this reckless, demagogic rhetoric," said Ethics and Religious Liberty Commision President Russell Moore. "Make no mistake. A government that can shut down mosques simply because they are mosques can shut down Bible studies because they are Bible studies."
Muslim-American groups also expressed their outrage.
“Mr. Trump's anti-Muslim immigration proposal is disappointing, unconstitutional, and empowers extremist ideology. It has no place in civilized American discourse,” Qasim Rashid, national spokesperson for Ahmadiyya Muslim Community USA told FoxNews.com.
"This type of knee jerk, if not demagogic policy stance, is unmitigated surrender to the Islamist global narrative that they, ISIS, and all the Islamist theocrats of the world own what is and is not Islam and faithful Muslim," said Zuhdi Jasser, president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy.
Trump's plan also drew criticism from the heads of the Republican Party in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, the first three states to vote in next year's presidential primaries.
New Hampshire GOP's chairwoman Jennifer Horn said the idea is "un-Republican. It is unconstitutional. And it is un-American," while South Carolina chairman Matt Moore said on Twitter, "As a conservative who truly cares about religious liberty, Donald Trump's bad idea and rhetoric send a shiver down my spine."
There are more than 5,800 servicemen and women on active U.S. military duty and in the reserves who self-identify as Muslim and could be assigned to serve overseas. Trump said in an interview Monday night on Fox News, "They'll come home." He added, "This does not apply to people living in the country, except that we have to vigilant."
It was also unclear whether Trump's ban would apply to Muslim allies in the fight against Islamic State militants. Ari Fleischer, a former aide to Republican President George W. Bush, tweeted, "Under Trump, the King Abdullah of Jordan, who is fighting ISIS, won't be allowed in the US to talk about how to fight ISIS."
But at Trump's rally in South Carolina, the proposed ban struck supporter Shelley Choquette as reasonable, because "it's not going to be forever. I think everybody needs to be checked."
Religion can factor into immigration decisions, but that typically happens when people are fleeing religious persecution. People of a particular religion may get favorable treatment by the United States, as when Russian Jews sought to leave the Soviet Union.
In the late 1800s, Congress passed legislation broadly aimed at halting Chinese immigration. But said Leti Volpp, a University of California expert on immigration law, "there is no precedent for a religious litmus test for admitting immigrants into the United States."
"Excluding almost a quarter of the world's population from setting foot in the United States based solely upon their religious identity would never pass constitutional muster," Volpp said.
White House spokesman Josh Earnest accused Trump of playing on people's fears and trying to tap into "a darker side, a darker element" of American society.
From the Democratic presidential campaign, Bernie Sanders said "Trump and others want us to hate all Muslims" and Hillary Clinton called the proposal "reprehensible, prejudiced and divisive."
On Capitol Hill, Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona said, "It's just foolish."
But will it hurt Trump in the campaign? "I have no idea," McCain said. "I thought long ago that things he said would hurt his prospects, and he continues to go up."