Connect with us

News

Man Raises $40K to Feed Needy People During Pandemic, IRS Socks Him with $16K Tax Bill

Last year a Connecticut middle school teacher did his good deed by raising $40,000 to help feed his neighbors

Published

on

Last year a Connecticut middle school teacher did his good deed by raising $40,000 to help feed his neighbors who were in need thanks to the coronavirus. Now he is being socked with a huge tax bill.

Teacher Louis Goffinet launched his fundraising campaign last April by appealing to Facebook users to donate money to help feed people in need.

The campaign grew much faster than he expected.

Per the Washington Post:

take our poll - story continues below

Did SCOTUS make the right decision on medical mandates for large businesses?

  • Did SCOTUS make the right decision on medical mandates for large businesses?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Flag And Cross updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Much to his surprise, that effort quickly drew hundreds of donors from around the world. By July, Goffinet had raised more than $30,000, using the money to buy and deliver bags of food — as well as gas and rental assistance — for more than a hundred families in Mansfield Center, Conn.

Goffinet was soon feeding needy people in his neighborhood and he couldn’t have been happier.

But, the thrill didn’t last long. By January, the IRS struck.

“I was so shocked,” Goffinet, 27, told the Hartford Courant. “It’s such a big amount. It’s not like I can say, ‘Oh, for the next month or two, I’ll dial down my expenses and I’ll save $16,000.’”

Unknown to him at the time, third-party transaction sites like Facebook Fundraisers are required to issue a 1099-K form to the IRS on any transactions that exceed $20,000. While those guidelines are posted on the social media giant’s donation platform, Goffinet said he never thought his volunteer grocery effort would get so big.

Well, there you go.

No good deed goes unpunished.

Follow Warner Todd Huston on Facebook at: facebook.com/Warner.Todd.Huston.

News

Dem-Run City Adds Stunning New Stipulation to Second Amendment

At some point soon, the left will likely be faced with the litigious reality that all of this impedance is no different from infringement. 

Published

on

We must remember always:  When the Democrats talk a big game about repealing, rescinding, or abolishing the Second Amendment, they don’t mean it.  They can’t mean it.

They know as well as the rest of us that any attempt to go door-to-door to confiscate firearms, (of any kind), is going to lead to the sort of horror that would end their political party outright.  The Second Amendment is its own insurance policy, and was built into our nation’s DNA in such a way as to never be fully removed.

And so, instead of going after the amendment itself, the liberal left seeks to increase the complexity, cost, and confusion surrounding the right to bear arms.  They are battling constitutional rights with bureaucracy, essentially, and it’s just as offensive as it sounds.

The latest lurch in this battle for liberty comes to us, almost predictably, from California.

take our poll - story continues below

Did SCOTUS make the right decision on medical mandates for large businesses?

  • Did SCOTUS make the right decision on medical mandates for large businesses?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Flag And Cross updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

A California city has approved liability insurance for gun owners, the first such measure in the US, as it seeks to lower gun violence through stricter rules.

The San Jose City Council held a final vote on Tuesday to turn a proposal it previously passed into law requiring gun owners in the city to carry the insurance and pay a fee, the Associated Press reported. The previous vote was held on June 30, 2021.

“The proposals include two requirements for gun owners that no city or state in the U.S. has ever implemented: the purchase of liability insurance and the payment of annual fees to fund violence-reduction initiatives,” San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo wrote in an op-ed with the Los Angeles Times last week.

The logic here was liberal lunacy at its most potent:

The mayor also predicted an ensuing legal storm from pro-gun advocates.

“Why should any city subject itself to litigation? Because now-common horrific reports of shootings throughout the nation do little more than elicit a performative parade of prayers and platitudes from Congress. Because problem-solving must be elevated over political posturing,” he added.

On Monday, Liccardo explained at a news conference that the proposal intends to better compensate shooting victims and their familes, as well as make it harder for people who aren’t willing to follow the rules to own a firearm, KTVU reported.

“While gun rights advocates argue that gun owners should not have to pay a fee to exercise their constitutional right to bear arms,” Liccardo said, via the report, the “2nd Amendment does not require the taxpayers to subsidize folks to own guns.”

At some point soon, the left will likely be faced with the litigious reality that all of this impedance is no different from infringement.

We must remember always:  When the Democrats talk a big game about repealing, rescinding, or abolishing the Second Amendment, they don’t mean it.  They can’t mean it. They know as well as the rest of us that any attempt to go door-to-door to confiscate firearms, (of any kind), is going to lead to the sort of horror that would end their political party outright.  The Second Amendment is its own insurance policy, and was built into our nation’s DNA in such a way as to never be fully removed. And so, instead of going after the amendment itself, the liberal left seeks to increase the complexity, cost, and confusion surrounding the right to bear arms.  They are battling constitutional rights with bureaucracy, essentially, and it’s just as offensive as it sounds. The latest lurch in this battle for liberty comes to us, almost predictably, from California. A California city has approved liability insurance for gun owners, the first such measure in the US, as it seeks to lower gun violence through stricter rules. The San Jose City Council held a final vote on Tuesday to turn a proposal it previously passed into law requiring gun owners in the city to carry the insurance and pay a fee, the Associated Press reported. The previous vote was held on June 30, 2021. “The proposals include two requirements for gun owners that no city or state in the U.S. has ever implemented: the purchase of liability insurance and the payment of annual fees to fund violence-reduction initiatives,” San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo wrote in an op-ed with the Los Angeles Times last week. The logic here was liberal lunacy at its most potent: The mayor also predicted an ensuing legal storm from pro-gun advocates. “Why should any city subject itself to litigation? Because now-common…

Continue Reading

News

Puffed-Up Putin Issues Threat Against US and NATO Over Ukraine Invasion

The potential for disaster is high here, and it is going to take a concerted, global effort to keep the Moscow madman in check. 

Published

on

And so we find ourselves at the precipice of war, dragged there by the belligerent and bellicose Vladimir Putin.

The Russian President, despite his protestations, appears hellbent on bringing Ukraine back into the folds of the motherland.  He has tens of thousands of troops at the border, he’s telling the world to butt out, and his mouthpieces in the media are threatening nuclear war.  There’s no real denying it any longer, but Putin keeps saying the right words when asked, as if this buys him some sort of plausible deniability.

He has deniability, sure, but it definitely isn’t plausible.  Especially if he decides to keep issuing threats to the rest of the global community.

Russia’s top diplomat on Wednesday promised to take appropriate measures if the West’s response to Moscow’s security demands is not found to be constructive.

take our poll - story continues below

Did SCOTUS make the right decision on medical mandates for large businesses?

  • Did SCOTUS make the right decision on medical mandates for large businesses?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Flag And Cross updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

The U.S. agreed with Russia that it would answer questions regarding NATO’s military presence in the region. The Kremlin has accused the West of a military expansion that raises security concerns for Moscow, Reuters reported. The report said Ukraine had no objections to the U.S. responses.

“If we do not receive a constructive answer from the west on our security demands, Moscow will take appropriate measures,” Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said in a statement, Reuters reported.

And, lest someone was inclined to believe that Putin’s motives were pure:

Russian President Vladimir Putin has a “menu of options” for taking hostile action toward Ukraine, Fox News contributor Daniel Hoffman said to Fox News Digital on Tuesday.

“He could blockade the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov,” Hoffman said, highlighting the 100,000 Russian troops Putin has stationed at the border with Ukraine. “He could launch a full-throttle assault on Kyiv, which we would obviously see. He could also use his Spetsnaz guys, special forces guys — and they’re inside Ukraine already — to topple this Zelensky government. That’s also an option.”

“I have a high level of confidence Putin will do something,” Hoffman added. “As far as what that is, I’m not even sure if Putin has decided yet.”

The potential for disaster is high here, and it is going to take a concerted, global effort to keep the Moscow madman in check.

And so we find ourselves at the precipice of war, dragged there by the belligerent and bellicose Vladimir Putin. The Russian President, despite his protestations, appears hellbent on bringing Ukraine back into the folds of the motherland.  He has tens of thousands of troops at the border, he’s telling the world to butt out, and his mouthpieces in the media are threatening nuclear war.  There’s no real denying it any longer, but Putin keeps saying the right words when asked, as if this buys him some sort of plausible deniability. He has deniability, sure, but it definitely isn’t plausible.  Especially if he decides to keep issuing threats to the rest of the global community. Russia’s top diplomat on Wednesday promised to take appropriate measures if the West’s response to Moscow’s security demands is not found to be constructive. The U.S. agreed with Russia that it would answer questions regarding NATO’s military presence in the region. The Kremlin has accused the West of a military expansion that raises security concerns for Moscow, Reuters reported. The report said Ukraine had no objections to the U.S. responses. “If we do not receive a constructive answer from the west on our security demands, Moscow will take appropriate measures,” Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said in a statement, Reuters reported. And, lest someone was inclined to believe that Putin’s motives were pure: Russian President Vladimir Putin has a “menu of options” for taking hostile action toward Ukraine, Fox News contributor Daniel Hoffman said to Fox News Digital on Tuesday. “He could blockade the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov,” Hoffman said, highlighting the 100,000 Russian troops Putin has stationed at the border with Ukraine. “He could launch a full-throttle assault on Kyiv, which we would obviously see. He could also use his Spetsnaz guys, special…

Continue Reading
The Schaftlein Report

Latest Articles

Best of the Week