The Front Page Cover
The Events of the Week -- Featuring:
Is that sermon political?
by Jeff Jacoby
.
Top Headlines
VIDEO: Top Democrats all agree with Trump's immigration plan and building the wall. (YouTube)
Protesters block Education Secretary DeVos from entering DC school. (The Hill)
The Trump Effect: The president's wild start churns domestic politics around the world. (The Wall Street Journal)
The Pentagon found $125 billion in waste. Now a GOP chairman is asking other agencies what they've found. (The Washington Post)
House Oversight reviews Kellyanne Conway's promotion of Ivanka Trump in response to PC product cancelations. (Hot Air)
Like Conway, Michelle liar-nObama boasted about "boosting" sale of designers. (Washington Examiner)
News analysis on the Yemen raid: Trump carried out liar-nObama's plan. (National Review)
Connecticut moves to restrict Second Amendment rights to only the rich. (National Review)
Brian Williams, once suspended for lying, spends segment on Trump's lying — kettle meet pot. (The Washington Free Beacon)
Gallup: 3 times more people say media "too tough" on Trump than liar-nObama. (CNS News)
Policy: This Republican carbon tax proposal is anything but conservative. (The Heritage Foundation)
Policy: Here are 10 priorities for Betsy DeVos. (The Daily Signal)
~The Patriot Post
.
.
How to really deal with
the North Korean nuclear threat
by Nicholas Eberstadt
{aei.org} ~ North Korea is a “small country, far-away, about which we know little,” to paraphrase a fateful comment in defense of appeasement from the 1938 crisis over Czechoslovakia... But there is one thing every American needs to know about far-away North Korea: its rulers are on a methodical and relentless quest for the capability to hit New York and Washington with nuclear weapons. The nuclear campaign that North Korea—formally known as the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, or DPRK– is planning against the United States is one it intends to win. Washington is badly unprepared to meet this threat, because too many of our leaders do not understand the Pyongyang game-plan...
.Trump’s Court Battle in Perspective
by Roger Aronoff
{aim.org} ~ Now that a federal appeals court panel has upheld the freeze on President Donald Trump’s executive order on refugees and immigration, he will likely have his first case before the U.S. Supreme Court in the not too distant future... This may have been an unforced error on the part of the President. While I believe it was wrong and counter-productive for President Trump to belittle the Washington state judge and suggest that even a “bad high school student” would understand the law, the media, in their hyper-hostility toward Trump, are demonstrating their complete double standard. Where was their criticism of liar-nObama when he attacked and pressured the courts to rule in his favor, or condemned them after rulings went against him? The press was missing in action. President liar-nObama wasn’t shy about criticizing the courts. He did so during his 2010 State of the Union address where he criticized the Supreme Court’s ruling on Citizens United... http://www.aim.org/aim-column/trumps-court-battle-in-perspective/?utm_source=AIM+-+Daily+Email&utm_campaign=Daily%20Email%20Feb-10-2017&utm_medium=email
.BLM Mobsters Block Devos From School,
Enough Of This “Right To Agitate”
by Rick Wells
{rickwells.us} ~ The radical violent leftists are using BLM-style intimidation and threats of physical violence against their opponents in the Trump administration... They were doing it throughout the campaign, as Project Veritas exposed, and doing so with the blessing of the liar-nObama White House, liar-Clinton organization and the DNC. Just as with the Nazis in the 1930s, the corruption and penchant for violence goes all the way to the top of that criminal organization disguised as a political party. That point was made even more obvious on Friday when newly confirmed Education Secretary Betsy Devos attempted to make her first visit to a public school, Jefferson Academy in Washington DC. Her way was blocked by ranting leftists screaming the familiar and moronic “shame, shame, shame.” How dare she not support overpaid failing parasites and the system that empowers them? Those were the same words used by leftist thugs who chased and cornered North Carolina Governor former Pat McCrory, who was in the company of Lou Dobbs, and their wives, during the million hag march in DC the day after President Trump’s inauguration... http://rickwells.us/blm-mobsters-block-devos-school-enough-right-agitate/
.Assad Confirms Jihad Militia That Killed
Chris Stevens Now In U.S. Refugee Population
by Sam Di Gangi
{conservativedailypost.com} ~ We know already that Ambassador Stevens made repeated requests for help and back up and was ignored. It seems that he and only one other person were all that stood between him and the people who were working to bringing in heavy weapons to Syria from Libya... This means that Assad is perfectly correct about not only the terrorist threat, but that America’s top brass may have actually allowed Stevens to be murdered. HE MIGHT HAVE BEEN LEFT TO DIE ON PURPOSE TO HIDE WHAT HE KNEW. In an interview with Yahoo News, Assad was asked if he thought, since he was certain that terrorist elements were involved, whether or not he felt that Trump or the protesters were correct about the travel ban. Assad chose to leave such matters to the people and leadership of the U.S. a respect that much of the world has not shown him, including liar-nObama’s America saying only that, “is an American issue.” He did go on with his point, however, by saying that the internet is full of factual reports that show not only articles and official documents outlining the fact of terrorist infiltration within refugees ranks, but also videos of the terrorists saying it for themselves...
.ISIS Terrorists Tapping Organized
Crime to Infiltrate Europe
{investigativeproject.org} ~ With the help of organized criminal elements, Islamic State terrorists reportedly are buying legitimate British passports that can evade security detection from security authorities, the Daily Beast reports... An Italian intelligence investigation into the Camorra mafia discovered an advertisement on the deep web that linked to a Naples firm capable of producing sophisticated biometric passports. "We are selling original UK Passports made with your info/picture. Also, your info will get entered into the official passport database," the advertisement reads. "So its possible to travel with our passports. How do we do it? Trade secret! Information on how to send us your info and picture will be given after purchase! You can even enter the UK/EU with our passports, we can just add a stamp for the country you are in."... http://www.investigativeproject.org/5784/isis-terrorists-tapping-organized-crime-to#
..
Is that sermon political?
by Jeff Jacoby
{jewishworldreview.com} ~ Should pastors preach politics from the pulpit? Or should houses of worship be kept rigorously politics-free?
Compelling arguments can be made both ways.
On the one hand, it is the role of religious leaders and churches to guide and instruct their flocks - to articulate the spiritual values that believers are expected to uphold and to show how those values apply in every area of life. Clergy at churches, synagogues, and mosques have always spoken out on issues affecting their worshipers and the larger society. Many of the most transformative causes in American history - independence from England, the struggle against slavery, opposition to abortion, the civil rights movement - were shaped by the involvement of religious leaders.
On the other hand, millions of Americans believe strongly that a house of worship is no place for politics, and that clergy trivialize the word of G0D by trying to make it fit a partisan template. The teachings of Christianity (or Judaism or Islam or Hinduism) are not Republican or Democratic. There are religiously devout liberals, and there are religiously devout conservatives. They can often be found sitting in the same pews and listening to the same sermon, and many would be livid to hear their spiritual leader deliver an overtly "red" or "blue" message from the pulpit. In a 2012 survey by the Pew Research Center, two-thirds of respondents said houses of worship should not endorse political candidates.
But while the pros and cons can be debated, federal law long ago settled the question as a matter of law: Nonprofit charities, including religious organizations and houses of worship, are not allowed to endorse politicians or take sides in elections.
According to the IRS, because churches are exempt from paying taxes under the Internal Revenue Code's Section 501(c)(3), they are "absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for elective public office." A church violating that ban can have its tax-exempt status revoked.
The prohibition has been in the tax code for more than six decades. It was an act of payback engineered in 1954 by then-Senator Lyndon Johnson after a couple of tax-exempt organizations in Texas published and distributed pamphlets opposing his reelection bid and urging support for the Democrat challenging him in that year's primary. Under the Johnson Amendment, tax-exempt charitable organizations would henceforth be barred from endorsing or opposing any candidate. LBJ wasn't targeting houses of worship. But freedom of speech and expression in houses of worship has been inhibited ever since by Johnson's act of retribution.
It's time to fix that.
Legislation was introduced in Congress Wednesday to soften the Johnson Amendment by allowing 501(c)(3) institutions to make overtly political statements as long as it's done "in the ordinary course of the organization's regular and customary activities." Religious and other tax-exempt groups would still be barred from contributing money to campaigns or political parties. But ministers or rabbis or imams who wished to sing the praises of one candidate or speak out bluntly against another would be free to do so without having to fear Washington's wrath.
The bill, dubbed the Free Speech Fairness Act, "would essentially get the IRS out of the speech police business," says Erik Stanley of the Alliance Defending Freedom, a religious-liberty legal defense group. The legislation's purpose isn't to encourage political speech in houses of worship - only to once again make the option clearly legal. It is unconstitutional, Stanley argues, for the IRS to have "the power to monitor, censor, and punish a pastor for something he says from the pulpit."
In truth, examples of overt politicking in churches aren't all that hard to find. liar-Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump both took their presidential campaigns to Sunday-morning pulpits. Plenty of pastors urged their flocks to vote for - or against - one of the candidates, undeterred by the threat of IRS action.
But so long as the 1954 law remains on the books, the threat of persecution is real. When evangelist Bill Keller raged in 2007 that "if you vote for Mitt Romney, you are voting for Satan," Americans United, a prominent advocacy group, urged the IRS to investigate his tax status. Similarly, observes legal scholar Keith Blair in the Denver University Law Review, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's incendiary political sermons in support of Barack liar-nObama put his church's tax-exempt privilege in jeopardy.
Presidents of both parties have used the IRS to harass opponents. Even if the Johnson Amendment didn't raise profound free-speech questions, it would still be a constantly ticking threat, ready to be detonated by any White House with a malicious streak.
Charitable groups should again be allowed, as they were allowed until 1954, to decide for themselves what political opinions they wish to express. Do politics belong in church? There will never be a unanimous answer to that question. But on this, perhaps, left and right can agree: The answer shouldn't come from the tax code.
Compelling arguments can be made both ways.
On the one hand, it is the role of religious leaders and churches to guide and instruct their flocks - to articulate the spiritual values that believers are expected to uphold and to show how those values apply in every area of life. Clergy at churches, synagogues, and mosques have always spoken out on issues affecting their worshipers and the larger society. Many of the most transformative causes in American history - independence from England, the struggle against slavery, opposition to abortion, the civil rights movement - were shaped by the involvement of religious leaders.
On the other hand, millions of Americans believe strongly that a house of worship is no place for politics, and that clergy trivialize the word of G0D by trying to make it fit a partisan template. The teachings of Christianity (or Judaism or Islam or Hinduism) are not Republican or Democratic. There are religiously devout liberals, and there are religiously devout conservatives. They can often be found sitting in the same pews and listening to the same sermon, and many would be livid to hear their spiritual leader deliver an overtly "red" or "blue" message from the pulpit. In a 2012 survey by the Pew Research Center, two-thirds of respondents said houses of worship should not endorse political candidates.
But while the pros and cons can be debated, federal law long ago settled the question as a matter of law: Nonprofit charities, including religious organizations and houses of worship, are not allowed to endorse politicians or take sides in elections.
According to the IRS, because churches are exempt from paying taxes under the Internal Revenue Code's Section 501(c)(3), they are "absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for elective public office." A church violating that ban can have its tax-exempt status revoked.
The prohibition has been in the tax code for more than six decades. It was an act of payback engineered in 1954 by then-Senator Lyndon Johnson after a couple of tax-exempt organizations in Texas published and distributed pamphlets opposing his reelection bid and urging support for the Democrat challenging him in that year's primary. Under the Johnson Amendment, tax-exempt charitable organizations would henceforth be barred from endorsing or opposing any candidate. LBJ wasn't targeting houses of worship. But freedom of speech and expression in houses of worship has been inhibited ever since by Johnson's act of retribution.
It's time to fix that.
Legislation was introduced in Congress Wednesday to soften the Johnson Amendment by allowing 501(c)(3) institutions to make overtly political statements as long as it's done "in the ordinary course of the organization's regular and customary activities." Religious and other tax-exempt groups would still be barred from contributing money to campaigns or political parties. But ministers or rabbis or imams who wished to sing the praises of one candidate or speak out bluntly against another would be free to do so without having to fear Washington's wrath.
The bill, dubbed the Free Speech Fairness Act, "would essentially get the IRS out of the speech police business," says Erik Stanley of the Alliance Defending Freedom, a religious-liberty legal defense group. The legislation's purpose isn't to encourage political speech in houses of worship - only to once again make the option clearly legal. It is unconstitutional, Stanley argues, for the IRS to have "the power to monitor, censor, and punish a pastor for something he says from the pulpit."
In truth, examples of overt politicking in churches aren't all that hard to find. liar-Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump both took their presidential campaigns to Sunday-morning pulpits. Plenty of pastors urged their flocks to vote for - or against - one of the candidates, undeterred by the threat of IRS action.
But so long as the 1954 law remains on the books, the threat of persecution is real. When evangelist Bill Keller raged in 2007 that "if you vote for Mitt Romney, you are voting for Satan," Americans United, a prominent advocacy group, urged the IRS to investigate his tax status. Similarly, observes legal scholar Keith Blair in the Denver University Law Review, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's incendiary political sermons in support of Barack liar-nObama put his church's tax-exempt privilege in jeopardy.
Presidents of both parties have used the IRS to harass opponents. Even if the Johnson Amendment didn't raise profound free-speech questions, it would still be a constantly ticking threat, ready to be detonated by any White House with a malicious streak.
Charitable groups should again be allowed, as they were allowed until 1954, to decide for themselves what political opinions they wish to express. Do politics belong in church? There will never be a unanimous answer to that question. But on this, perhaps, left and right can agree: The answer shouldn't come from the tax code.
Comments