Si vis pacem parabellum If I agreed with you, we would both be wrong We can thank public education for American gullibility... When did individualism and self reliance come to depend on the government? "A Liberal is a person who will give away everything he doesn't own." Capital punishment means never having to say, "You again?" Liberals Use Guilt As Moral Weapon Nothing sucks more than that moment during an argument when you realize you're wrong.
Monday, February 4, 2013
Friday, February 1, 2013
Delaware leads nationwide move to strip county sheriffs of power
This is clear as heck, they are coming after each and every entity that may stand against this democratic regime seeping through the country. The sheriff is the one person that can actually arrest those in high positions. They are coming after us from all angles so we don’t see it coming. They one of last checks and balances and this is a warning to Joe.
Biden’s name connected is no surprise. He has overstepped his position before getting an innocent man arrested and detained to keep him from telling his gay story with Obama to come to light. This is not the democratic party of decades past, that party has been hijacked and being used for the nefarious acts to come.
Delaware leads nationwide move to strip county sheriffs of power
“If the sheriffs lose their arrest ability then Delaware will be a de facto police state.” -Delaware Sussex County Sheriff Jeff Christopher
Ever wary of tyranny, America’s Founding Fathers took pains to design a political system with many mechanisms to check and balance government power. Those mechanisms include:- Dividing government into three co-equal branches (separation of powers);
- A Constitution that specifies the People as the source of government power, as well as defines and delimits that power;
- Amendments to the Constitution spelling out the People’s rights and liberties (Bill of Rights) — rights that are by birth (natural rights), instead of conferred by man;
- Federalism: dividing, decentralizing, and diffusing government power among central (national government in Washington, D.C.) and regional units (the state governments).
The fearless Arizona Maricopa County Sheriff Joe ArpaioAccording to Wikipedia, the U.S. sheriff is a county official and is typically the top law enforcement officer of a county. Historically, the sheriff was also commander of the militia in that county. Distinctive to law enforcement in the United States, sheriffs are usually elected. Of the 50 U.S. states, 48 have sheriffs. The two that do not are Alaska (which has no counties), and Connecticut (which has no county governments and has state marshals instead of sheriffs).
Most sheriff’s offices have a law enforcement role, and their basic function dates back to the origins of the title in feudal England. Although the authority of the sheriff varies from state to state, a sheriff or his deputies (in all states except Delaware, where the sheriff’s defined role is going through arbitration) has the power to make arrests within his or her own jurisdiction. Many sheriff’s offices also perform other functions such as traffic control and enforcement, accident investigations, and maintenance and transportation of prisoners.
In fact, the office of sheriff is older than the United States, predating the official founding of the U.S.A. by more than a century. As an example, Delaware’s first sheriff took office in 1669 — 107 years before the Declaration of Independence!
In their role as their counties’ chief law enforcement officer, sheriffs answer only to the U. S. Constitution, not to Washington, D.C. That is why liberty-loving Americans, fearful of the growing power of the federal government, look to the sheriffs as a check. Indeed, on the matter of the Obama regime’s gun control and gun ban, more and more county sheriffs are saying “no.”
It should come as no surprise then that the forces of tyranny mean to curtail the powers of the county sheriff, if not abolish the institution altogether. In that nefarious effort, the State of Delaware is leading the way.
In April 2012, Pat Shannan of American Free Press first alerted us to the machinations of Delaware Attorney General Beau Biden, son of VPOS Joe Biden.
Although Delaware’s State Constitution stipulates that the office of the sheriff is a constitutionally created position and sheriffs “shall be conservators of the peace within the counties . . . in which they reside,” Biden sent out mandates to commissioners informing them that their sheriffs no longer have arrest powers. In an opinion released February 24, 2012, State Solicitor L.W. Lewis said that neither the state nor the common law grants arrest powers to the county sheriffs.
Delaware Sussex County Sheriff Jeff Christopher
As reported by Jack Minor for WND, Democrats in Delaware’s state legislature then sought to legalize Biden’s move with HB 290, a bill to redefine the role of sheriffs: “‘Police officer’ as used in this code shall not include sheriffs and sheriff deputies,” and it “is the intent of the General Assembly to specifically state the sheriffs and their deputies do not have any arrest authority.”
HB 290 redefined the role of sheriffs to where they can serve papers and process administrative work but have no hand in actual law enforcement. Supporters of the legislation said law enforcement authority belongs in the hands of the state police and city police who, unlike the sheriff, are not elected.
Although HB 290 died a quick death when Rep. Danny Short, a Republican who had sponsored the bill, tabled the bill after he realized its true purpose, Democrats introduced a replacement bill.
On May 3, 2012, House Majority Leader Pete Schwartzkopf, a Democrat, introduced HB 325, which is virtually identical to HB 290, in an apparent attempt to get around Short’s tabling of his bill. As described on the State of Delaware’s website:
“This bill makes the Delaware law clear that the county sheriffs and their deputies do not have arrest authority. Historically the sheriffs and deputies have not exercised arrest authority and the Attorney General’s office has given an opinion that the sheriff’s “power to arrest is no greater than that shared by any citizen.”
Sheriff Christopher said he suspects that Schwartzkopf has been one of the key figures behind the entire legislative process to strip the sheriff’s office of their constitutional power: “He wants to abolish the office of sheriff in Delaware. While he issued a statement saying he isn’t interested in getting rid of the sheriff the truth is he wants to neuter us so the office is under his authority rather than the people who elected us.”
Christopher said if the sheriffs lose their arrest ability then Delaware will be a de facto police state.
On May 10, 2012, Delaware’s House of Representatives passed HB 325 by an overwhelming 36-2 majority. On June 14, 2012, the state Senate passed HB 325 by a 12-3 majority.
On June 19, 2012, Governor Jack A Markell, a Democrat, signed HB 325 into law. (Source: delaware.gov)
Stonewalled CBS reporter fights back, embarrasses Obama administration on Twitter - BizPac Review
Stonewalled CBS reporter fights back, embarrasses Obama administration on Twitter - BizPac Review
Stonewalled CBS reporter fights back, embarrasses Obama administration on Twitter
JANUARY 23, 2013 BY 49 COMMENTS
Sharyl Attkisson’s appears on “Face the Nation” to discuss “Fast and Furious.”
CBS News investigative reporter Sharyl Attkisson has had enough of the uber-secretive Obama administration’s handling of the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, which led to the murder of four Americans, including that of Ambassador Chris Stevens.
Attkisson has gone where no women and very few men have gone before in her pursuit of a story. Her reporting has earned her multiple Emmys, most recently for her investigations on Operation Fast and Furious. She’s also a multiple winner of the Radio and Television News Directors Association-Edward R. Murrow Award.
Attkisson knows when she’s being stonewalled or handed a line. The Obama administration, which calls itself the most open and transparent presidential administration in recent history, is doing both, and Attkisson voiced her frustrations on Twitter Tuesday evening to let the world know it.
She began at 9:41 p.m., tweeting about a statement the Obama administration sent to her and CBS News:
“@SharylAttkisson
The Obama Admin has indicated it will not be answering Benghazi questions we’ve been asking since Oct. I will list some of them.”
The Obama Admin has indicated it will not be answering Benghazi questions we’ve been asking since Oct. I will list some of them.”
She followed up two minutes later with a question that took up two tweets:
“@SharylAttkisson
What time was Ambassador’s Stevens’ body recovered, what are the known details surrounding his disappearance and death…”
What time was Ambassador’s Stevens’ body recovered, what are the known details surrounding his disappearance and death…”
“. ..including where he/his body was taken/found/transported and by whom?”
And from that moment forward, she just kept hammering:
“Who made the decision not to convene the Counterterrorism Security Group (CSG) the night of the Benghazi attacks?”
“We understand that convening the CSG a protocol under Presidential directive (“NSPD-46”). Is that true? If not, please explain…”
“… if so, why was the protocol not followed?”
“Is the Administration revising the applicable Presidential directive? If so, please explain.”
“Who is the highest-ranking official who was aware of pre-911 security requests from US personnel in Libya?”
After Attkisson’s preliminary questions, she drove on, asking about the White House cover-up and its narrative blaming the incident on a demonstration against an anti-Islamic YouTube video:
“Who is/are the official(s) responsible for removing reference to al-Qaeda from the original CIA notes?”
“Was the President aware of Gen. Petraeus’ potential problems prior to Thurs., Nov. 8, 2012?”
“What is your response to the President stating that on Sept. 12, he called 911 a terrorist attack, in light of his CBS interview…”
“…on that date in which he answered that it was too early to know whether it was a terrorist attack?”
Attkisson was one of the first journalists to fly on a combat mission over Kosovo, seen here on an Air Force B-52 in 1999.
I’m not going to list all of Attkisson’s tweets — they’re too numerous, and they continued rapid-fire until 11:44 p.m. Then, the reporter apparently awoke in the middle of the night with the following afterthought:
“Forgot to mention that Sen. Graham has asked 4 transcripts of FBI iviews w/Benghazi survivors but at last word that hadn’t been provided”
“It should be pointed out that Attkisson hasn’t reported on the Benghazi story on the air since the November 23, 2012 edition of CBS This Morning, according to a search on Nexis,” Newsbusters reported Tuesday.
I just hope Attkisson keeps asking her questions — and doesn’t give up until someone in the administration finally starts answering them.
Wednesday, January 30, 2013
Tuesday, January 29, 2013
1/8/2013 -- Sandy Hook School Shooting Tribute Vid -- UPLOADED 1 MONTH BEFORE ! [Video]
1/8/2013 -- Sandy Hook School Shooting Tribute Vid -- UPLOADED 1 MONTH BEFORE ! [Video]: ALL POINTS BULLETIN ! This is not a joke, or faked in any way. At this point, serious investigation needs to be done to find out how far back this all goes ...
Disclose.tv - 1/8/2013 -- Sandy Hook School Shooting Tribute Vid -- UPLOADED 1 MONTH BEFORE !
Friday, January 25, 2013
Thursday, January 24, 2013
Tuesday, January 22, 2013
Shock Claim: Obama Only Wants Military Leaders Who ‘Will Fire on U.S. Citizens’
Shock Claim: Obama Only Wants Military Leaders Who ‘Will Fire on U.S. Citizens’: This comes on the heels of Sunday's report in the Washington Free Beacon (WFB) that the head of Central Command, Marine Corps Gen. James Mattis is being dismissed by Obama and will leave his post in March. SHARE THIS PAGE:
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
Monday, January 14, 2013
Thursday, January 10, 2013
Wednesday, January 9, 2013
Tuesday, January 8, 2013
Sunday, January 6, 2013
Saturday, January 5, 2013
Wednesday, January 2, 2013
Sunday, December 30, 2012
Someone please tell me what the HELL's wrong with all the people that run this country!!!!!!
Someone please tell me what the HELL's wrong with all the people that run this country!!!!!!
Both Republicans & Democrats
We're "broke" and can't help our own Seniors, Veterans, Orphans, Homeless, etc.,???????????
In the last years we have provided direct cash aid to
Haiti - 1.4 B,
Hamas - 351 M,
Pakistan - 2 B,
Libya 1.45 B,
Egypt - 397 M,
Mexico - 622 M,
Russia - 380 M,
Haiti - 1.4 B,
Jordan - 463 M,
Kenya - 816 M,
Sudan - 870 M,
Nigeria - 456 M,
Uganda - 451 M,
Congo - 359 M,
Ethiopia - 981 M,
Pakistan - 2 B,
South Afrika - 566 M,
Senegal - 698 M,
Mozambique - 404 M,
Zambia - 331 M,
Kazakhstan - 304 M,
Iraq - 1.08 B,
Tanzania - 554 M,
with literally Billions of Dollars and they still hate us!!!!
Our retired seniors living on a 'fixed income' receive no aid nor do they get any breaks while our government and religious organizations pour Hundreds of Billions of $$$'s and Tons of Food
to Foreign Countries!
We have hundreds of adoptable children who are shoved aside to make room for the adoption of
foreign orphans.
AMERICA: a country where we have homeless without shelter, children going to bed hungry, elderly going without needed medication and mentally ill without treatment -etc.
YET.......................
They have a 'Benefit' for the people of Haiti on 12 TV stations, ships and planes lining up with food, water, tents clothes, bedding, doctors and medical supplies.
Imagine if the *GOVERNMENT* gave 'US' the same support they give to other countries.
Sad isn't it?
Saturday, December 29, 2012
Friday, December 28, 2012
Monday, December 24, 2012
Saturday, December 22, 2012
When Will Death Spiral States Impose Taxes On Fleeing Citizens?
Timeline Photos
WHAT A GREAT BUT FRIGHTENING ARTICLE:
When Will Death Spiral States Impose Taxes On Fleeing Citizens?
By Bill Frezza
One of the most fascinating characteristics of government borrowing - whether at the local, state, or federal level - is that debts contracted over time are obligations tied to specific geographical boundaries but not to the citizens living there when those debts were incurred. For example, while it's customary to say that each of the 210,000 residents of Stockton, California, are on the hook for their share of the bankrupt municipality's estimated $700 million in unpaid bills, the day one of them picks up and moves, personal responsibility for that debt drops to zero.
Imagine if that type of tax "evasion" were eliminated. How would it change America?
Government debts are accrued on your behalf by elected officials for whom you had a chance to vote, all supposedly representing your interests. In a democracy, all citizens are obliged to pay the government's bills as determined by the duly empowered taxing authorities - regardless of whether they voted for a particular officeholder or not. What's to stop legislators from passing laws that make debt obligations due and payable by any citizen who decides to leave for another jurisdiction? After all, they don't hesitate to take your money when you die.
Mayors and governors of most tax-and-spend, heavily unionized, low-growth cities and states are both desperate for revenue and tired of watching disgruntled citizens vote with their feet. Think how politically attractive it would be for them to make "economic deserters" pay their "fair share" of old debts. I can see the arguments already: "You can't move away from credit card debt or commercial debt, so why should government debt be so easy to dodge?" Politicians could easily win kudos from both public employee unions and the overtaxed residents left behind, for the mere cost of enraging emigrants who won't be around to exact retribution at the next election.
And can't you just see the progressive commentariat lining up behind a movement designed to deter well-heeled blue state residents from seeking refuge in those despicable red hinterlands? Like Glenn Close rising from the bathtub to take one more stab in Fatal Attraction, don't be surprised when death-spiral states resort to exit taxes as a last ditch effort to forestall their impending bankruptcies.
Exit taxes imposed on emigrants have a long history, including their use in both Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. They were imposed under the theory that, since citizens were educated by the government and were either provided benefits or allowed to profit from jobs and business held while living under the government's protection, they were obligated to pay back some of that money on their way out.
Sounds like something only a Hitler or Stalin would love? If only. Try surrendering your U.S. citizenship and moving to another country. Thanks to a series of expatriation tax laws passed by Congress dating back to the 1960s, with the most recent revision sponsored by Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) (no stranger to tax evasion himself), emigrants leaving the U.S. must pay capital gains tax, including on unrealized gains, across all their holdings marked to market as of the day of departure. In addition, expats are liable for gift taxes on amounts above $12,000 a year given to anyone in the U.S., for the rest of their lives, even though they are no longer citizens themselves.
To date, the Supreme Court has had no problem with any of these laws. So what is to stop, say, California from imposing exit taxes on the steady stream of citizens heading off for Texas, Arizona, and Nevada? More than 200,000 people flee the Golden State every year, taking their money with them while leaving behind their share of the state's $617 billion in state debt, which comes to about $16,000 per resident. That's $3.2 billion a year in tax evasion!
If presenting every deserter with a $16,000 bill proves too unpopular, why not follow Uncle Sam's lead and make a grab for unrealized capital gains taxes? California taxes capital gains at the same rate as ordinary income - voters there recently passed a referendum to increase the top rate to 13 percent - so a tax like that would bite the richest nice and hard. That'll make those Silicon Valley millionaires think twice before escaping to a low-tax state before cashing in their shares! And who has any sympathy for them? After all, they didn't build that.
Perhaps class warfare politicians in the U.S. are waiting for their French role model to show them the way. French President Francois Hollande, proud of jacking the top income tax rate up to 75 percent, seems nonplussed about the fact that his wealthy subjects are decamping for London and Belgium. Gérard Depardieu, France's richest movie star, recently made the news not for a repeat of his classic performance of peeing in an airplane aisle but for becoming a resident of Estaimpuis, Belgium, less than a mile from the French border. Isn't it time to make an example out of such economic villains?
Of course, if that fails, states could consider building walls and posting armed guards at their borders. That's been tried before too.
WHAT A GREAT BUT FRIGHTENING ARTICLE:
When Will Death Spiral States Impose Taxes On Fleeing Citizens?
By Bill Frezza
One of the most fascinating characteristics of government borrowing - whether at the local, state, or federal level - is that debts contracted over time are obligations tied to specific geographical boundaries but not to the citizens living there when those debts were incurred. For example, while it's customary to say that each of the 210,000 residents of Stockton, California, are on the hook for their share of the bankrupt municipality's estimated $700 million in unpaid bills, the day one of them picks up and moves, personal responsibility for that debt drops to zero.
Imagine if that type of tax "evasion" were eliminated. How would it change America?
Government debts are accrued on your behalf by elected officials for whom you had a chance to vote, all supposedly representing your interests. In a democracy, all citizens are obliged to pay the government's bills as determined by the duly empowered taxing authorities - regardless of whether they voted for a particular officeholder or not. What's to stop legislators from passing laws that make debt obligations due and payable by any citizen who decides to leave for another jurisdiction? After all, they don't hesitate to take your money when you die.
Mayors and governors of most tax-and-spend, heavily unionized, low-growth cities and states are both desperate for revenue and tired of watching disgruntled citizens vote with their feet. Think how politically attractive it would be for them to make "economic deserters" pay their "fair share" of old debts. I can see the arguments already: "You can't move away from credit card debt or commercial debt, so why should government debt be so easy to dodge?" Politicians could easily win kudos from both public employee unions and the overtaxed residents left behind, for the mere cost of enraging emigrants who won't be around to exact retribution at the next election.
And can't you just see the progressive commentariat lining up behind a movement designed to deter well-heeled blue state residents from seeking refuge in those despicable red hinterlands? Like Glenn Close rising from the bathtub to take one more stab in Fatal Attraction, don't be surprised when death-spiral states resort to exit taxes as a last ditch effort to forestall their impending bankruptcies.
Exit taxes imposed on emigrants have a long history, including their use in both Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. They were imposed under the theory that, since citizens were educated by the government and were either provided benefits or allowed to profit from jobs and business held while living under the government's protection, they were obligated to pay back some of that money on their way out.
Sounds like something only a Hitler or Stalin would love? If only. Try surrendering your U.S. citizenship and moving to another country. Thanks to a series of expatriation tax laws passed by Congress dating back to the 1960s, with the most recent revision sponsored by Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) (no stranger to tax evasion himself), emigrants leaving the U.S. must pay capital gains tax, including on unrealized gains, across all their holdings marked to market as of the day of departure. In addition, expats are liable for gift taxes on amounts above $12,000 a year given to anyone in the U.S., for the rest of their lives, even though they are no longer citizens themselves.
To date, the Supreme Court has had no problem with any of these laws. So what is to stop, say, California from imposing exit taxes on the steady stream of citizens heading off for Texas, Arizona, and Nevada? More than 200,000 people flee the Golden State every year, taking their money with them while leaving behind their share of the state's $617 billion in state debt, which comes to about $16,000 per resident. That's $3.2 billion a year in tax evasion!
If presenting every deserter with a $16,000 bill proves too unpopular, why not follow Uncle Sam's lead and make a grab for unrealized capital gains taxes? California taxes capital gains at the same rate as ordinary income - voters there recently passed a referendum to increase the top rate to 13 percent - so a tax like that would bite the richest nice and hard. That'll make those Silicon Valley millionaires think twice before escaping to a low-tax state before cashing in their shares! And who has any sympathy for them? After all, they didn't build that.
Perhaps class warfare politicians in the U.S. are waiting for their French role model to show them the way. French President Francois Hollande, proud of jacking the top income tax rate up to 75 percent, seems nonplussed about the fact that his wealthy subjects are decamping for London and Belgium. Gérard Depardieu, France's richest movie star, recently made the news not for a repeat of his classic performance of peeing in an airplane aisle but for becoming a resident of Estaimpuis, Belgium, less than a mile from the French border. Isn't it time to make an example out of such economic villains?
Of course, if that fails, states could consider building walls and posting armed guards at their borders. That's been tried before too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)