Old Hippie's Forums - US Politics

Ore. prosecutor says no Gore prosecution

Bronx — Sat, 31 Jul 2010 00:23:13 GMT

PORTLAND, Ore. � Former Vice President Al Gore won't be prosecuted over allegations by a masseuse that he groped and assaulted her in his Portland hotel room in 2006, the county prosecutor said Friday.
District Attorney Michael Schrunk said the case has numerous problems and isn't appropriate for a criminal prosecution.
Among the difficulties that Schrunk cited: Although the red-haired masseuse said she was terrified of Gore, she also said she called him after their encounter and told him to "dream of redheaded women."
Schrunk also said the woman � Molly Hagerty � told the hotel she appreciated the business referrals it had given her, and didn't mention any problems with Gore just two nights earlier.
Gore denied the charges, including under questioning July 22 by local detectives. His aides welcomed the news.
"Mr. Gore unequivocally and emphatically denied this accusation when he first learned of its existence three years ago," spokeswoman Kalee Kreider said in a statement. "He respects and appreciates the thorough and professional work of the Portland authorities and is pleased that this matter has now been resolved."
There were questions about the veracity of the accuser's claims from the start.
Detectives investigated the claims in 2006 and 2009 but decided not to pursue the case because of what they called the accuser's lack of cooperation and erratic behavior. She waited two months after the alleged incident to contact police, then canceled several meetings only to finally meet with officers three years later.
It's still unclear whether she sought compensation to tell her story, and whether she received payment from any publication; news reports indicated she had sought $1 million from the National Enquirer, which broke the story about her accusations against Gore.
The Portland Tribune said it thoroughly investigated her allegations � including interviewing the accuser � only to determine it wasn't responsible to move forward with a story. The paper reported that she failed a polygraph test. At least one other news organization also declined to publish a story.

http://www.comcast.net/articles/news...x.Allegations/

Obama calls charges against Rangel 'troubling'

Bronx — Sat, 31 Jul 2010 00:19:01 GMT

WASHINGTON � President Barack Obama on Friday called ethics charges against Democratic Rep. Charlie Rangel "very troubling" and said he hopes the longtime lawmaker can end his career with dignity. Several House Democrats went further, flat-out urging the New York congressman to resign.
"He's somebody who's at the end of his career," Obama said in an interview that aired Friday on "CBS Evening News with Katie Couric." "I'm sure that what he wants is to be able to end his career with dignity. And my hope is that it happens."
Obama, speaking on the issue for the first time, praised the 20-term Rangel for serving his constituents well but called the more than one-dozen tax and disclosure charges against him "very troubling."
It was hardly an endorsement for the veteran lawmaker, but fell well short of the calls for resignation Rangel received on the eve of the House's August recess. As House Democrats headed home, they wrestled with how to handle the matter in their districts ahead of the midterm elections.
Republicans, meanwhile, raced ahead with plans to make Rangel the face of corrupt Washington under the rule of Democrats who had vowed to clean up Congress.
For his part, Rangel met with perhaps his staunchest supporters, members of the New York state delegation, in the stately Capitol parlor named for the Ways and Means Committee that he headed until March.
"He indicated there was some sloppiness" in his official papers, Rep. Edolphus Towns, D-N.Y., told reporters, "but, you know, there's no criminality here."
House rules and credibility � not criminality � were the reasons cited by more than a half dozen House Democrats known to have called for Rangel's resignation by late afternoon Friday.
A House panel on Thursday made public for the first time 13 charges of misusing his office and tax and disclosure violations against Rangel, 80, as it opened the trial phase of the ethics proceedings against him. If Rangel and the ethics committee do not settle the case, it goes to a public trial this fall, at the height of an election season in which every member of the House, 36 in the Senate and the Democratic majorities of both chambers are on the line.
Either conditionally or outright, Democrats calling for Rangel's resignation included Rep. Walter Minnick of Idaho, Betty Sutton of Ohio, John Yarmuth of Kentucky, Zack Space of Ohio, Ann Kirkpatrick of Arizona and Mary Jo Kilroy of Ohio.
"Too many politicians, both Democrats and Republicans, have fallen victim to the idea that they are 'different' than regular folks and nothing could be further from the truth," Kirkpatrick said in a statement.
"It is our job as members of Congress to hold each other accountable to a higher standard regardless of party," she added. "If the serious charges against (Rangel) are accurate, he needs to resign."
Rangel denies the charges and says the indictment released Thursday contains factual errors.
"We've heard Charlie in the Ways and Means Committee, and he's addressed these charges. He never denied they happened. He always has an explanation. You can excuse one or two, but not 13," Yarmuth told the Louisville Courier-Journal in an interview published Friday. "I don't see how he can stay if they're true. I believe they are."
Back home in Rangel's Harlem district, he remains revered and could well win reelection if his political career survives the ethics probe. One constituent said Friday she had mixed feelings after reading news accounts of the allegations against him.
"I don't think he is 100 percent honest, but he's no worse than other politicians," said Charynda Morez, a college student, who was buying groceries at a deli.
She said that she didn't know how he should be punished, but that Rangel should resign anyway. Rangel has four apartments "when there are people who don't have a home," she said, citing allegations that Rangel lived in four combined rent-stabilized apartments instead of one, in violation of New York City law.
Democratic leaders are urging their members to cast the election as one about a choice between their party, which under President Barack Obama has overhauled health care and Wall Street, and a GOP-tea party combination that wants to roll back Democratic accomplishments.
House Republicans relished using Rangel to change the subject � especially if he does not reach a settlement with the ethics committee. A public trial equates to a free media presentation of the misdeeds of one of the most senior Democrats in the House.
The House Republicans' campaign arm released a list of Democrats who have not returned campaign contributions they received from Rangel during their careers and said those lawmakers would face questions about the matter from constituents during the August break.
"It's very difficult for Democrats to make the case that this is a 'choice' election when the national headlines are focused around an ethics scandal that has clearly impacted the party in power," said Ken Spain, spokesman for the National Republican Campaign Committee.
Rangel retained many supporters Friday. The New York delegation and the Congressional Black Caucus, which was co-founded by Rangel, urged their colleagues not to rush to judgment. House leaders eager to avoid alienating black voters remained mum on what Rangel should do.
Some Democrats privately said they took a small measure of comfort in one revelation. Rep. Gene Green, the Texas Democrat who led the four-member bipartisan panel of investigators, told reporters that his committee recommended a relatively mild punishment for Rangel � reprimand, a statement of wrongdoing voted by the whole House that carries no other penalty.
But statements continued to trickle out that left no doubt that at some point, Democrats would have to look out for No. 1 - themselves.
"If at the trial's conclusion Mr. Rangel is found guilty by his peers, then he should incur the full punishment allowed by the House, including removal from office," said Rep. Bobby Bright, D-Ala.

http://www.comcast.net/articles/news...Rangel.Ethics/

obama a marxist? No

Randall — Fri, 30 Jul 2010 23:54:02 GMT

Posted by Troy Green on July 30, 2010 at 2:52pm in Current Events & General Discussion

Is Obama a Marxist? No, He Works for the Bankers

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
July 30, 2010
Glenn Beck, the Fox News talking heads, and no shortage of Tea Party activists like to characterize Barry Obama as a Marxist. In an article gaining a lot of traction across the blogosphere, Wayne Allyn
Root, who considers himself a Libertarian Republican, says Obama is
purposely overwhelming the U.S. economy to create systemic failure in
order to turn the U.S. into a socialist/Marxist state.




So-called conservatives keep chanting the mantra that Obama is a Marxist.

Obamacare, cap-and-trade, legalizing 12 million illegal aliens, increased taxation, and endless bailouts and stimulus boondoggles, Root argues, are schemes designed to overwhelm the system and pave the way
for a Marxist takeover of America.
It cannot be denied these schemes will destroy America. It also cannot be denied they are intentional. However, it has nothing to do with Marxism.
Marx advocated a proletarian revolution. He said that in order to overcome the restraint of private property the working class must seize political power through a social revolution and expropriate the
capitalist classes around the world and place the productive capacities
of society into collective ownership. Marx said the ultimate goal is a a
classless and stateless form of communism beneficial to the interests
of the proletariat or the working class.
Is it possible the Federal Reserve and Goldman Sachs operatives in the Obama administration truly desire a communist revolution as Glenn Beck and Wayne Allyn Root insist?
During the 2008 election cycle, Goldman Sachs donated nearly a million bucks to Obama. Citigroup and JPMorgan Chase donated nearly $1.5 million to the Obama campaign while Morgan Stanley pitched in over a
half million dollars. �When you break it out by individual companies,
you find that employees of Goldman Sachs gave more to Obama than workers
of any other employer. The Goldman Sachs geniuses are followed by
employees of the University of California, UBS, JPMorgan Chase,
Citigroup, National Amusements, Lehman Brothers, Harvard and Google. At
many of these workplaces, Obama has a three- or four-to-one fund-raising
advantage over McCain,� the New York Times wrote on July 1, 2008.
Is it possible all these folks are clueless about the supposed Marxist philosophy of Obama? Is it possible transnational corporations and international banks savvy enough to game the system for trillions of
dollars support a communist system that would ultimately strip them of
that wealth?
Goldman along with the Federal Reserve rule the Obama administration. William C. Dudley was the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and a partner and managing director at Goldman. Gary Gensler, chairman of the
Commodity Futures Trading Commission, spent 18 years at Goldman. Mark
Patterson, chief of staff to Tim Geithner, is a former Goldman lobbyist.
Philip Murphy, nominated for ambassador to Germany, is a former Goldman
executive. Diana Farrell, deputy director of the National Economic
Council, is a former Goldman employee. Emil Michael, White House fellow,
used to be an investment banker at Goldman.
Obama functionaries are connected to the CFR and the Trilateral Commission, two organizations established to implement world government. Tim Geithner, Susan Rice, Pete Peterson, Gen. James Jones, Thomas
Donilion, Paul Volker, Dennis Blair, Richard Haass, Dennis Ross, Richard
Holbrooke and others have connections to the Trilateral Commission, the
Federal Reserve, the CFR, and Bilderbergers.

�We can be quite sure that somewhere between 400 to 500 high-level members of the Obama administration will be members of the CFR. How can we say that? Because that�s about how many CFR members occupy the
current Bush administration (beginning with Vice President Dick Cheney,
an in-again, out-again member of the CFR board of directors). And about
the same number occupied posts in the Clinton administration,� John F. McManus wrote in November of 2008 after
Obama was selected to be the front man for the banksters.
Obama�s mischaracterized socialism is a control mechanism created by the bankers. It has nothing to do with liberating downtrodden workers. The Soviet system was financed by Wall Street, as Rep. Louis T.
McFadden, chairman of the House Banking and Currency Committee
throughout the 1920-30s, explained: �The course of Russian history has,
indeed, been greatly affected by the operations of international
bankers� The Soviet Government has been given United States Treasury
funds by the Federal Reserve Board� acting through the Chase Bank.�
The late Antony Sutton�s exhaustive research demonstrates how Wall Street bankers supported and financed the Russian revolution, supported the Soviet Union financially, technologically and military both before and after the Second World War, and also
supported Hitler and Nazi Germany financially and military
both before and during the Second World War.
The monopoly men who exported jobs from America to slave labor gulags in China and are now in the process of looting the financial system are not dedicated Marxists. The late Gary Allen wrote:

If you wanted to control the nation�s manufacturing, commerce, finance, transportation and natural resources, you would need only to control the apex, the power pinnacle, of an all-powerful
socialist government. Then you would have a monopoly and could squeeze
out all your competitors. If you wanted a national monopoly, you must
control a national socialist government. If you want� a worldwide
monopoly, you must control a world socialist government. That is what
the game is all about. �Communism� is not a movement of the downtrodden
masses but is a movement created, manipulated and used by power-seeking
billionaires in order to gain control over the world�. first by
establishing socialist governments in the various nations and then
consolidating them all through a �Great Merger,� into an all-powerful
world, socialist super-state.

The Obama banker-CFR-Trilat-Bilderberg administration is the process of forging this �Great Merger� and is moving inexorably toward an all-powerful world, socialist super-state. Obama�s socialism will not
emancipate the workers of America. It will further impoverish and
enslave them.
As we approach the mid-term elections, the deceptive claim that Obama is a Marxist will pick up steam and will be exploited by the Tea Party movement as it attempts to get Republicans masquerading as patriots and
constitutionalists elected to office.
Glenn Beck and Wayne Allyn Root need to reexamine and stop chanting the ludicrous Obama is a Marxist mantra and point out what Obama really is � a sock puppet reading a teleprompter for his employer: the control
freaks at the international banks and multinational corporations.

Wake Up!

NM governor considers pardon for Billy the Kid

Bronx — Fri, 30 Jul 2010 23:45:54 GMT

SANTA FE, N.M. � The showdown between Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid has fascinated the American public for nearly 130 years with its classic, Old West storyline of the frontier lawman hunting down the notorious gunslinger.
As it turns out, the feud isn't completely over.
New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson is considering granting a posthumous pardon to Billy the Kid, angering descendants of Garrett who call it an insult to recognize such a violent outlaw.
Three of the late lawman's grandchildren sent a letter to Richardson this week that asked him not to pardon the outlaw, saying such an act would represent an "inexcusable defamation" of Garrett.
"If Billy the Kid was living amongst us now, would you issue a pardon for someone who made his living as a thief and, more egregiously, who killed four law enforcement officers and numerous others?" the Garrett family wrote.
The issue has resurfaced because Richardson asked a New Mexico columnist earlier this year to check with historians to measure their support for issuing a pardon. The governor plans to meet with Garrett family members next week to discuss the issue.
Garrett shot Billy the Kid down on July 14, 1881. Garrett tracked him after the outlaw escaped from the Lincoln County jail in a famous gunbattle that left two deputies dead.
The Kid's status as an Old West folk hero grew as countless books, films and songs were written about the gunslinger and his exploits. According to legend, he killed 21 people, one for each year of his life, but the New Mexico Tourism Department puts the total closer to nine.
The pardon dispute is the latest in a long-running fight over whether Garrett shot the real Kid or someone else and then lied about it. Some history buffs claim Billy the Kid didn't die in the shootout with Garrett and landed in Texas, where he went by "Brushy Bill" Roberts and died of a heart attack at age 90 in 1950.
Richardson joined the tussle in 2003 by supporting a plan by then-Lincoln County Sheriff Tom Sullivan to reinvestigate the century-old case.
The governor said he was willing to consider a pardon for the Kid � something the outlaw hoped for but never received from New Mexico territorial Gov. Lew Wallace.
"Governor Richardson has always said that he would consider making good on Governor Wallace's promise to Billy the Kid for a pardon," Richardson spokeswoman Alarie Ray-Garcia said Thursday. "He is aware of the Garrett family's concerns and will be meeting with them next week."
Susan Floyd Garrett of Santa Fe is one of the grandchildren who signed the letter to Richardson. She said the family decided to speak out because a pardon represents a "defamation of character" to their grandfather. She described the Kid as a "gangster."
"Everybody wants to mythologize Billy the Kid," she said.
Garrett and her brother, Jarvis Patrick Garrett, met Thursday with descendants of another key figure in the Kid's story � John Henry Tunstall, a rancher whose murder in 1878 triggered a bloody feud known as the Lincoln County War. Billy the Kid, also known as William Bonney, worked as a ranch hand for Tunstall.
Hilary Tunstall-Behrens of London, a great-nephew of Tunstall, said he's not backing a modern-day pardon for the Kid.
"I wouldn't join the cause," said Tunstall-Behrens, 83. "There is so much strong feelings."
Gale Cooper, an amateur historian who lives near Albuquerque, said a pardon by Richardson would be the "culmination of the hoax that contended Pat Garrett was a nefarious killer and Billy was not buried in his grave."
Cooper has written a book, "MegaHoax," to debunk claims that Garrett killed someone other than the Kid.
After serving as Lincoln County sheriff, Garrett's career soured. He ran unsuccessfully for higher political office, served as a customs collector, but ran into financial problems as a rancher.
He was shot and killed in 1908 in a dispute over his land.

http://www.comcast.net/articles/news...he.Kid.Pardon/

A Rogue Government

taxidave — Fri, 30 Jul 2010 15:03:56 GMT

The United States, 2010: A Rogue Government
By Frank Salvato July 30, 2010 6:40 AM

With the recent ruling by US District Judge Susan Bolton, a Clinton appointee, blocking the most contentious parts of Arizona law SB1070, we learn two things: One, that the federal government cannot be forced to enforce federal law, regardless of the fact that the law has been brought to legislation by the constitutional process, and two, that today, opportunistic political ideologues who have schemed their ways to power have all but extinguished good government in the United States of America; government that should be exclusively engaged in serving the best interests of the American people.

To be fair, Judge Bolton's ruling does not end the issue, not by a long shot. In fact, there is a very good chance that the case surrounding Arizona law SB1070 will make it -- and in an expedited manner -- to the US Supreme Court. This actually bodes well for the American citizen primarily because today the US Supreme Court has a balance that actually gives an edge -- even if ever so slightly -- to the US Constitution and, thus, the American people. Judge Bolton's ruling simply put those sections blocked -- or deemed unlikely to withstand a challenge in the judicial system, be it from the ACLU, La Raza or the Holder/Obama Justice Department (which is tantamount to the ACLU and La Raza) -- on hold until the courts resolve the issues.

But there is a larger and more important point that the events surrounding Arizona law SB1070 have exposed, that We the People have no "accountable" government to speak of. Yes, we do have our "elected officials," those we elect to office, to execute government and administer the services it has been authorized to provide, but, truth be told, once the political class gets "inside the beltway," or within the confines of the many State Houses, they routinely abdicate their duty to their constituents and their responsibilities to the federal and state constitutions, only to take up the causes of their political parties and the cause of their political survival: re-election.

In reality, we have, on the one hand, a gaggle of professional politicians doing what's best for the political class, special interests groups and like-minded ideologues and on the other a coven of political provocateurs who serve, exclusively, the agenda of their ideological addictions. Sequestered in the true minority of the halls of elected office are true citizen statesmen who champion the American philosophy while adhering to the limitations placed on government as set forth by the Framers of the United States Constitution.

This lopsided mix of professional politicians, political provocateurs and -- in the minority -- true statesmen, leaves the American citizenry with no effective constitutional government to execute the laws of the land. Unless executing the laws of the land serves the best interests of the professional politicians and political provocateurs, we are all -- including the true statesmen -- held hostage to the whim of a political class, corrupted by the illusion of power. We have seen the execution of this tyranny over government, not only in this administration, but in past administrations from both sides of the aisle, in the issues of entitlement programs, special interest group bailouts, the institutionalization of class warfare (in both a racial and financial context), and, more recently, the governmental encroachment into the healthcare insurance industry, the politically correct and self-enriching green energy movement, the Gulf oil spill response, immigration and border security.

With regard to the issue of Arizona's SB1070, a letter writer to The Washington Times points out that Article I, Section 10 of the US Constitution states:

"No State shall, without the Consent of Congress...engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."

With an illegally present population depleting the financial resources of the State of Arizona, with drug cartels routinely invading the State of Arizona, drug gangs murdering people in the streets of Douglas, Nogales, Naco and other border locales and with Phoenix being "fundamentally transformed" into the kidnapping capitol of the world, doesn't the federal government have an obligation -- and the State of Arizona the right -- under the US Constitution, to fight back against these foreign invaders?

Of course, the answer, from a constitutional viewpoint -- as well as a common sense viewpoint -- is yes. But common sense and the US Constitution stand as casualties in the ideological and opportunistic "revolution" that Progressives and the professional politicians have waged against our nation. What we refer to as the federal government today, refuses to execute good government in order to protect the citizens of Arizona while using the full forces of the offices they have assumed to interfere with the Arizona government's attempts to safeguard its own citizenry; a right reserved for each and every state government in the US Constitution and the many state constitutions.

When elections empower men with the ability to selectively enforce laws, our nation has ceased operating as a Constitutional Republic. When elections empower ideologues and provocateurs to pit citizen against citizen through the divisive and destructive employment of race-based politics, we have ceased to be a government of the people, by the people and for the people. When professional politicians can feed from the taxpayer-filled public trough until their greedy bellies burst, we have ceased being the home of the free and the champions of liberty.

And so we arrive at this brutally accurate reality; that our government is not a government of laws, as John Adams and the Framers insisted that it should be, but a government of men; corrupt, selfish and egotistical men. The political class in America has unwittingly facilitated the agenda of the Progressive movement in marching toward a Democratic Socialist system of government, where democracy -- which each and every Framer and Founder warned against -- is celebrated as the Constitutional Republican form of government falls victim to constitutional illiteracy.

This morning my wife, Nancy, a veracious defender of the Charters of Freedom and the American philosophy, opined in a most serious tone that our Constitutional Republic is today held captive by an Oligarchy. Even the most elementary understanding of our Charters of Freedom, the Constitutional Republican system of government and the many other systems of government prove her to be correct. We the People have allowed the many professional politicians and provocateurs to establish an Oligarchy in the United States of America; a shadow government of elitist ideologues who raid the treasury to bribe the elite and the narcissistic and apathetic alike, in order to maintain the illusion of power.

I keep using the term "illusion of power" because the power that the professional politicians and ideological provocateurs have over the American people is just that: an illusion. The true power lies with the American people through the power of the ballot. We still have the ability to expunge the professional politicians and ideological provocateurs from the seats of power, through the power of the vote. We still have the power to make our peace with the next generation by righting the wrong we have perpetrated on our country in allowing nefarious men and women to attain power; in allowing for the establishment of this Progressive and opportunistic Oligarchy that stands in place of our Constitutional Republican system of government. We can make it right. We have the power.

Many believe that the second American Revolution has already begun in the quest of this noble goal through the rise of a great awakening of the American people -- the Tea Party movement. This movement is awakening the American citizenry to their constitutional obligation to provide educated and meaningful governmental oversight; to provide a proper stewardship for the Charters of Freedom so that we might pass the inalienable rights to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness to future generations. Truth be told, those average Americans who stand against the tyranny of today's Oligarchs are -- along with those who serve in the US military -- the true patriots of our time.

In a soon to be released documentary addressing Black conservatism in America, titled, Runaway Slave, Pastor C.L. Bryant discusses the gifts of liberty and opportunity; gifts guaranteed in the Charters of Freedom to all men and women. He also talks about the slavery that tyranny affords; tyranny employed by today's Oligarchs, professional politicians and provocateurs. Pastor Bryant is quoted as saying:

"Tyranny is colorblind. White or Black, it will control you. Run, America! Run faster! Don't give up! Don't give in! Are you tired yet? Run harder!!"

If not now...when?

"These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as freedom should not be highly rated." -- Thomas Paine, The Crisis, December 23rd, 1776

---

Read more: GOPUSA � Commentary � Salvato: The United States, 2010: A Rogue Government

Finally, Obama Bows to Someone Worthy!�

winslo — Fri, 30 Jul 2010 15:02:36 GMT

Finally, Obama Bows to Someone Worthy!�

NJ Gov. Chris Christie�

Attached Images

obamabow-christie.jpg (68.5 KB)

Who Doesn't Pay Taxes and Why

winslo — Fri, 30 Jul 2010 14:58:14 GMT

Who Doesn't Pay Taxes and Why

For the 2009 tax year, an estimated 47% of U.S. households did not pay any federal income tax. The percentage was a bit higher than normal due to the lousy economy and some allegedly temporary tax breaks that may not be renewed. The long-term percentage of non-taxpaying households is apparently around 40%. This is according to the Tax Policy Center, a Washington research outfit.

Since we all benefit from federally supplied advantages like national defense, the interstate highway system and public education funding, I believe everyone who earns a halfway decent income should pay at least some federal income tax. Freeloading should be against the rules except for those who are truly poor.

How did we get to the point where almost half of our citizenry is excused from paying any federal income tax despite being allowed to vote just like the other half? Keep reading for the answers.
Lower-Income Households Often Pay No Tax

Lower-income individuals often don�t owe any federal income tax thanks to breaks like the standard deduction, the personal exemption deduction, the child credit, and the earned income credit. In fact, they often receive government checks for going to the trouble of filing returns, because they qualify for so-called refundable credits. (The earned income credit is the most common one, but there are others.) You can collect refundable credits whether you owe any tax or not, so calling them tax credits is deceptive. In truth, they are disguised welfare payments that are laundered through the tax system. Our beloved Washington politicians apparently believe that makes them more acceptable to the uninformed public, and they may be right.
Some Middle-Income Households Don�t Pay Any Tax Either

As it turns out, the privilege of not having to pay any federal income tax is not limited to lower-income households.

Example 1: Say you�re married with wage income of $50,250 and two under-age-17 kids. After claiming the standard deduction and four personal exemption deductions, your 2010 tax bill is $2,800. However, it�s zeroed out by the child tax credit ($2,000) and the Making Work Pay credit ($800). So you owe nothing to the feds. If you have income from long-term capital gains or dividends, make deductible retirement account contributions, itemize deductions, or qualify for other tax breaks, your income could be even higher, and you would still not owe any federal income tax. Clearly, folks of relatively modest means should not have to pay a ton to the IRS, but I don�t think it�s appropriate to pay nothing.

Appallingly enough, you can have a much higher income and still pay no federal income tax if you qualify for the right mix of breaks for things like buying a home, childcare expenses, college education costs, and making energy-efficient home improvements.

Example 2: Say you�re married with salary income of $120,000, 401(k) contributions of $12,000, two under-age-17 kids, and a college student with $4,000 in education expenses. Assume you also bought a home this year that qualifies for the now-defunct $6,500 credit for existing homeowners. Finally, assume you�re eligible for the $1,500 credit for energy-efficient home improvements. Believe it or not, your 2010 federal income tax bill will be zero even if you only claim the standard deduction. Your tax bill of $11,950 is completely wiped out by $13,300 in credits ($2,000 child credit, $2,500 education credit, $6,500 homebuyer credit, $1,500 credit for energy-efficient improvements, and the $800 Making Work Pay credit). In fact, you�ll get a $1,350 check from the government because some of your credits are refundable ($13,300 of credits - $11,950 of tax = $1,350 of free money). Congratulations! Despite your healthy income, you�re an official government welfare recipient. If this example doesn�t convince you that our nation�s tax policy is out of whack, I don�t know what will.
But 'the Rich' Pay a Bunch

Despite what some believe, we have a very progressive federal income tax system. That means the �the rich� pay their fair share and more. How could it be otherwise when close to half the population pays nothing? But don�t take my word for it. Here�s another example for doubters.

Example 3: Say you�re married with two kids and $250,000 of taxable income (after subtracting deductible retirement contributions, itemized deductions, and personal exemption deductions). Your 2010 federal income tax bill is a whopping $60,282. That�s a lot more than zero! If your taxable income is $500,000, you�ll owe a staggering $145,309.

Granted, the tax bills in the preceding example will be lower if part of your income is from long-term capital gains and dividends, but please don�t tell me the tax system isn�t progressive enough. According to the National Taxpayers Union, households in the top 5% by income have been paying about 60% of the federal income tax for some time. And if the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire next year, the system will become even more progressive. (Read more about Bush tax cuts.)
The Bottom Line

For all but the poorest folks, we need to restore the linkage between paying at least some income tax and being a voter. Otherwise, we can run into the dreaded scenario where those who don�t pay taxes can keep voting to raise them higher and higher for those who do. That�s a prescription for economic disaster (and worse), and we don�t want to go there.

Read more: Who Doesn't Pay Taxes and Why - Personal Finance - Taxes - SmartMoney.com Who Doesn't Pay Taxes and Why - Personal Finance - Taxes - SmartMoney.com

Taxes: A Defining Issue

winslo — Fri, 30 Jul 2010 14:53:56 GMT

At a time when the American people need to make some decisions about the nation's purpose, along comes Barack Obama to make the choices crystal clear.
Barack Obama knows taxes define worldview. The GOP should offer voters an alternative.

Daniel Henninger: Taxes: A Defining Issue - WSJ.com

Ray Stevens - Come to the USA

winslo — Fri, 30 Jul 2010 14:48:48 GMT

Just to cheer up your day. :ROFLMAO:

YouTube - Ray Stevens - Come to the USA!

Do You Know Just One Communist Personally?

Old Hippie — Fri, 30 Jul 2010 13:57:02 GMT

the ammesty memo

Randall — Fri, 30 Jul 2010 02:03:48 GMT

The Amnesty Memo [Robert VerBruggen]

According to an internal U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services memo going the rounds of Capitol Hill and obtained by National Review, the agency is considering ways in which it could enact �meaningful immigration reform absent legislative action� � that is, without the consent of the American people through a vote in Congress.

�This memorandum offers administrative relief options to . . . reduce the threat of removal for certain individuals present in the United States without authorization,� it reads.

Also: �In the absence of Comprehensive Immigration Reform, USCIS can extend benefits and/or protections to many individuals and groups by issuing new guidance and regulations, exercising discretion with regard to parole-in-place, deferred action and the issuance of Notices to Appear (NTA), and adopting significant process improvements.�

In recent weeks, Sen. Chuck Grassley and others in Congress have been pressing the administration to disavow rumors that a de facto amnesty is in the works, including in a letter to Department of Homeland Security head Janet Napolitano. �Since the senators first wrote to the president more than a month ago, we have not been reassured that the plans are just rumors, and we have every reason to believe that the memo is legitimate,� a Grassley spokesman tells NR. (NR contacted DHS, but a spokesman did not have a comment on the record.)

Many of the memo�s proposals are technical and fine-grained; for example, it suggests clarifying the immigration laws for �unaccompanied minors, and for victims of human trafficking, domestic violence, and other criminal activities.� It also proposes extending the �grace period� H-1B visa holders have between the expiration of their visa and the date they�re expected to leave the country.

With other ideas, however, USCIS is aiming big. Perhaps the most egregious suggestion is to �Increase the Use of Deferred Action.� �Deferred action,� as the memo defines it, �is an exercise of prosecutorial discretion not to pursue removal from the U.S. of a particular individual for a specific period of time.� For example, after Hurricane Katrina, the government decided not to remove illegal immigrants who�d been affected by the disaster.

The memo claims that there are no limits to USCIS�s ability to use deferred action, but warns that using this power indiscriminately would be �controversial, not to mention expensive.� The memo suggests using deferred action to exempt �particular groups� from removal � such as the illegal-immigrant high-school graduates who would fall under the DREAM Act (a measure that has been shot down repeatedly in Congress). The memo claims that the DREAM Act would cover �an estimated 50,000� individuals, though as many as 65,000 illegal immigrants graduate high school every year in the U.S.

In the immediate wake of the court decision blocking the Arizona immigration law yesterday, the memo is sure to create controversy � and the sense that the administration is bent on preserving and extending the nation�s de facto amnesty.

UPDATE: USCIS has released a statement on the memo:

Internal draft memos do not and should not be equated with official action or policy of the Department. We will not comment on notional, pre-decisional memos. As a matter of good government, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will discuss just about every issue that comes within the purview of the immigration system. We continue to maintain that comprehensive bipartisan legislation, coupled with smart, effective enforcement, is the only solution to our nation's immigration challenges.

Internal memoranda help us do the thinking that leads to important changes; some of them are adopted and others are rejected. Our goal is to implement policies wisely and well to strengthen all aspects of our mission. The choices we have made so far have strengthened both the enforcement and services sides of USCIS � nobody should mistake deliberation and exchange of ideas for final decisions. To be clear, DHS will not grant deferred action or humanitarian parole to the nation�s entire illegal immigrant population.

07/29 05:30 PM Share

Memo Details Administration's Plan to Provide Mass Amnesty Through Administrative Act

RACEBUICKS — Fri, 30 Jul 2010 01:34:06 GMT

http://www.numbersusa.com/content/ne...-executive-act

A newly revealed memo, obtained by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) who is leading the fight against amnesty, shows Obama Administration officials offering a detailed plan that would offer actual or de facto amnesty to millions of illegal aliens without Congress ever taking a vote.
The 11-page memo, drafted by Chief of Policy and Strategy for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Denise Vanison, outlines the various ways to offer a mass amnesty to the nation's 11-18 million illegal aliens through the use of administrative actions. The stated purpose of the memo is to offer "administrative relief options to promote family unity, foster economic growth, achieve significant process improvements and reduce the threat of removal for certain individuals present in the United States without authorization."
"The memo proposes 18 different ways for the Obama Administration to essentially eliminate our borders through regulatory fiat and in clear violation of the letter and the spirit of U.S. immigration laws, which Obama swore an oath to faithfully execute," said NumbersUSA's Director of Government Relations Rosemary Jenks.
The memo is an alternative plan to amnesty "in the absence of Comprehensive Immigration Reform." In addition to using deferred action and parole, which were previously identified in two separate letters drafted by Sen. Grassely and signed by 11 other Senators (read the first and second letters), the memo outlines ways that USCIS can extend benefits and protections to individuals and groups of people by lessening the standards used in "extreme hardship" cases.
Item 4 in the memo outlines ways the Obama Administration can provide amnesty for millions of illegal aliens through the "extreme hardship" provision. It would "encourage many more spouses, sons, and daughters of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents to seek relief without fear of removal. It would also increase the likelihood that such relief would be granted." Section 4 reads:

Lessen the Standard for Demonstrating "Extreme Hardship"
The Act at 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(I) and (II) renders inadmissible for 3 or 10 years individuals who have been unlawfully present in the U.S. for 180 days or one year respectively, and then depart. By statute, DHS has discretion to waive these grounds of inadmissibility for spouses, sons and daughters of U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents if the refusal to admit such individuals would result in extreme hardship to their qualifying relatives. Generally, the "extreme hardship" standard has been narrowly construed by USCIS.
To increase the number of individuals applying for waivers, and improve their chances of receiving them, CIS could issue guidance or a regulation specifying a lower evidentiary standard for "extreme hardship." This would promote family unity, and avoid the significant human and financial costs associated with waiver denial decisions born of an overly rigid standard. This revised standard would also complement expanded use of PIP as set forth in B.

In addition to lessening the standard for demonstrating "extreme hardship", the memo details many more options that "have the potential to result in meaningful immigration reform absent legislative action."
Other options include: allowing aliens in the United States under Temporary Protected Status to adjust their status to Legal Permanent Resident, extending "grace periods" to leave the country for aliens on temporary work visa, changing the distribution time line for temporary workers on the H-2B visa, and granting up to 240 additional days on applications for employment authorization when the application is filed before the work authorization expiration date.
Denise Vanison has been an immigration attorney for more than 18 years. She advised multi-national and domestic corporate clients on employment of foreign nationals in the United States, I-9 employment verification and procurement of passports, visas, green cards and U.S. citizenship.
The memo was drafted for Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Director Alejandro Mayorkas. In addition to Denise Vanison, Roxana Bacon from the Chief Councel's office, Debra Rogers from Field Operations, and Donald Neufield from Service Center Operations were also listed as authors of the memo.
Read the full memo (PDF)

Gibbs Takes on Rush Limbaugh

RACEBUICKS — Fri, 30 Jul 2010 01:02:01 GMT

Washington Wire HOME PAGE �
By Elizabeth Williamson
At a briefing today to discuss the administration�s efforts to rescue the auto industry, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs took on conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh�and every other critic �sitting in the cheap seats� �for criticizing the rescue of General Motors and Chrysler as a �government takeover� that smacks of socialism.

: White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

Told by a reporter that �You had Rush Limbaugh today � today or yesterday � talking Obama Motors again,� Gibbs, who doesn�t often provide free advertising by taking on his critics by name from the podium, let fire.
�Look, Rush Limbaugh and others wanted to walk away. Rush Limbaugh and others saw a million people that worked at these factories, that worked at these parts suppliers, that had � that supported communities, and thought we should all just walk away. The president didn�t think that walking away from a million jobs in these communities made a lot of economic sense,� Gibbs said.
He was just getting up to speed.
�We�ve got auto companies that for the first time since 2004 all showed an operating profit in the first quarter of this year. It�s adding jobs. And the money that this administration invested � about $60 billion � we believe we�re on the path to recouping all of that. That�s a significant story.
�I�ll let those that sat in the cheap seats a year-and-a-half ago and wanted to walk away� from a milion workers, he continued, �explain to every one of those workers why they made that decision.�
Finally, he wrapped it up: �And then you should ask Mr. Limbaugh � I don�t know what kind of car he drives, but I bet it�s not an F-150.�
The F-150 truck, we should note, is made by Ford, which didn�t get federal rescue funds.

Vote Tracker

ARBOLA — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 23:19:57 GMT

Voting Records
http://www.votetrackers.com/

�Journalists� Want To Control The Press

megimoo — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 23:16:38 GMT

�Journalists� Want To Control The Press

Liberal journalists suggest government shut down Fox News

If you were in the presence of a man having a heart attack, how would you respond? As he clutched his chest in desperation and pain, would you call 911? Would you try to save him from dying? Of course you would.
But if that man was Rush Limbaugh, and you were Sarah Spitz [sic], a producer for National Public Radio, that isn�t what you�d do at all.
In a post to the list-serv Journolist, an online meeting place for liberal journalists, Spitz wrote that she would �Laugh loudly like a maniac and watch his eyes bug out� as Limbaugh writhed in torment.
In boasting that she would gleefully watch a man die in front of her eyes, Spitz seemed to shock even herself. �I never knew I had this much hate in me,� she wrote. �But he deserves it.� �

Mind you, National Public Radio is considered by many to be the epitome of an objective mainstream news outlet. (Despite it being controlled by the government.)
But regarding Ms. Spitz, sometimes there really is truth in labeling.

In the summer of 2009, agitated citizens from across the country flocked to town hall meetings to berate lawmakers who had declared support for President Obama�s health care bill. For most people, the protests seemed like an exercise in participatory democracy, rowdy as some of them became.
On Journolist, the question was whether the protestors were garden-variety fascists or actual Nazis.
�You know, at the risk of violating Godwin�s law, is anyone starting to see parallels here between the teabaggers and their tactics and the rise of the Brownshirts?� asked Bloomberg�s Ryan Donmoyer. �Esp. Now that it�s getting violent? Reminds me of the Beer Hall fracases of the 1920s.�

Bloomberg is deemed to be mainstream media, even a somewhat conservative site, since it is market oriented.
Notice the ubiquitous trotting out of �Godwin�s law,� �teabaggers� and �Brownshirts.� Their originality speaks for itself. As does their open-mindness and tolerance. Their �liberalism.�

Richard Yeselson, a researcher for an organized labor group who also writes for liberal magazines, agreed.

For the record the �organized labor group� is, surprise, surprise, Change To Win, a SEIU front. Isn�t the �diversity� on the left simply amazing?

�They want a deficit driven militarist/heterosexist/herrenvolk state,� Yeselson wrote. �This is core of the Bush/Cheney base transmorgrified [sic] into an even more explicitly racialized/anti-cosmopolitan constituency.

Not �anti-cosmopolitan�! Anything but that!

Why? Um, because the president is a black guy named Barack Hussein Obama. But it�s all the same old nuts in the same old bins with some new labels: the gun nuts, the anti tax nuts, the religious nuts, the homophobes, the anti-feminists, the anti-abortion lunatics, the racist/confederate crackpots, the anti-immigration whackos (who feel Bush betrayed them) the pathological government haters (which subsumes some of the othercategories, like the gun nuts and the anti-tax nuts).� �

In other words, the �bitter clingers.�

On Journolist, there was rarely such thing as an honorable political disagreement between the left and right, though there were many disagreements on the left. In the view of many who�ve posted to the list-serv, conservatives aren�t simply wrong, they are evil. And while journalists are trained never to presume motive, Journolist members tend to assume that the other side is acting out of the darkest and most dishonorable motives�

Funny, but that is exactly what Mr. Obama always assumes, as well.
In any case, you must not speak against the Revolution. Or, rather, the Ruling Class. �Question Authority� only applies when it�s someone you don�t like who is in authority. Someone who is not in the Ruling Class.

The very existence of Fox News, meanwhile, sends Journolisters into paroxysms of rage. When Howell Raines charged that the network had a conservative bias, the members of Journolist discussed whether the federal government should shut the channel down.
�I am genuinely scared� of Fox, wrote Guardian columnist Daniel Davies, because it �shows you that a genuinely shameless and unethical media organisation *cannot* be controlled by any form of peer pressure or self-regulation, and nor can it be successfully cold-shouldered or ostracised. In order to have even a semblance of control, you need a tough legal framework.� �

Some people even consider the UK�s Guardian to be a real newspaper. Of course, Great Britain does not enjoy a First Amendment.

�I agree,� said Michael Scherer of Time Magazine. Roger �Ailes understands that his job is to build a tribal identity, not a news organization. You can�t hurt Fox by saying it gets it wrong, if Ailes just uses the criticism to deepen the tribal identity.�

Perhaps, Mr. Scherer is unaware that the US does have a First Amendment. Of course he and his colleagues would be only too happy to give up a free press if it meant that their side could decide what can or can�t be printed or uttered.
By the way, even Time Magazine used to be considered a mainstream publication. In fact, they used to be thought of as a news magazine.

Jonathan Zasloff, a law professor at UCLA, suggested that the federal government simply yank Fox off the air. �I hate to open this can of worms,� he wrote, �but is there any reason why the FCC couldn�t simply pull their broadcasting permit once it expires?� �

Thus sayeth �a law professor at UCLA.�

John Judis [sic], a senior editor at the New Republic, came down on Zasloff�s side, the side of censorship. �Pre-Fox,� he wrote, �I�d say Scherer�s questions made sense as a question of principle. Now it is only tactical.�

Somewhere Joseph Goebbels must be smiling.
But one of the most surprising aspects of all of this is just how un-self-aware these self-selected �intellectuals� are. The aforementioned Mr. Goebbels once observed, �think of the press as a great keyboard on which the government can play.�
These Solons don�t even realize that they are being played like a Hammond organ. Perhaps they enjoy it too much.
After all, throughout history there has never been any shortage of �journalists� to do the bidding of dictators.
As Aristotle once noted (paraphrasing), �there are some people who are just natural born slaves.� Perhaps that explains why some �journalists� simply cannot abide the sight of free men standing upright on their own two feet.

�Journalists� Want To Control The Press | Sweetness & Light