Group items tagged

International Passports could be held in lew of back taxes if Senate Bill 1813, the deliciously named "Moving Ahead for Progressives" Act, gets through the House. excerpt: A bill authored by a Southland lawmaker that could potentially allow the federal government to prevent any Americans who owe back taxes from traveling outside the U.S. is one step closer to becoming law. Senate Bill 1813 was introduced back in November by Senator Barbara Boxer (D-Los Angeles) to "reauthorize Federal-aid highway and highway safety construction programs, and for other purposes". After clearing the Senate on a 74 - 22 vote on March 14, SB 1813 is now headed for a vote in the House of Representatives, where it's expected to encounter stiffer opposition among the GOP majority. In addition to authorizing appropriations for federal transportation and infrastructure programs, the "Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act" or "MAP-21″ includes a provision that would allow for the "revocation or denial" of a passport for anyone with "certain unpaid taxes" or "tax delinquencies". Section 40304 of the legislation states that any individual who owes more than $50,000 to the Internal Revenue Service may be subject to "action with respect to denial, revocation, or limitation of a passport". The bill does allow for exceptions in the event of emergency or humanitarian situations or limited return travel to the U.S., or in cases when any tax debt is currently being repaid in a "timely manner" or when collection efforts have been suspended. However, there does not appear to be any specific language requiring a taxpayer to be charged with tax evasion or any other crime in order to have their passport revoked or limited - only that a notice of lien or levy has been filed by the IRS.

Hat tip to marbux for this catch.  Tim Kelly walks us through the increasingly rapid decline of American liberty, and our fall into the clutches of an ever growing police state.  Nicely written.  No solutions given.  I suggest we declare any effort,that violates the Constitutional rights of an American citizen as an act of treason,  especially if committed, unknowingly or knowingly authorized, or voted on by a public servant sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution.   excerpt: The intent of this short essay is not to provide a "list of horribles" committed by the government (although such an accounting is useful) but to point out that the much-feared police state has come into being. Its growth had been gradual, which contributed to the public's indifference, but it metastasized after 9/11, when the remaining legal barriers to the state's expansion were taken down in the name of "national security." A large portion of the public appears to be appropriately alarmed, but it remains to be seen whether this will reach a critical mass in time to reverse the country's destructive course.

Enough said.  Beautifully done Charlie! intro: Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them. Have you ever wondered why, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, we have deficits? Have you ever wondered why, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, we have inflation and high taxes? You and I don't propose a federal budget. The president does. You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does. You and I don't write the tax code. Congress does. You and I don't set fiscal policy. Congress does. You and I don't control monetary policy. The Federal Reserve Bank does. One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president and nine Supreme Court justices - 545 human beings out of the 235 million - are directly, legally, morally and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.

Bay Area Patriot Group post

Another well written article describing in full what that treasonous backstabbing bastard chief justice John Roberts has done to shred and destroy our Constitution.  Thanks to the Canadian Free Press and Timothy Birdnow. excerpt: So, why is this so important to our discussion of the ruling by the Roberts Court? Because many on our side seem to believe that John Roberts did us a favor in his decision upholding the Affordable Healthcare Act, or as it is known colloquially, Obamacare. The argument in conservative circles for a silver lining to this dark cloud of human bodily excretions is that this ends the debate over the right to use the Commerce Clause to justify any action of Congress and that it hangs this around Osama's neck, a huge tax increase, for the November elections. While a little soothing may be in order we are making a terrible mistake here, because, A.) an eggplant could see this is unconstitutional and, B.) it simply kicks the can down the road, forcing us to fight yet another unnecessary battle. We should have declared victory here. First, this is not a mere political move on Roberts part. He is Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and as such is not going to tie his name to a partisan decision that will be read about in American textbooks. If he is to violate his oath it will be for personal reasons, such as upholding this law against all expectations. What will he gain personally from doing the right thing and striking it down? Upholding such a crazy law guarantees him a spot in the history books. But he is violating his oath of office in doing so, and that is the only sensible explanation because the Constitution is fairly clear; the United States Constitution expressly grants all powers not specifically enumerated in the document to the states and the People, and nowhere is this particular tax authorized. Furthermore, it violates the principle of equality under the law as only some of the public is actually paying a tax; the rest are buyin

The War Party wins again. Spending cuts will come out of non-defense branches of government. Meanwhile, the Judicial Branch is nearly flat on its back because of sequestration. Judicial spending before sequestration was only 0.19 per cent of federal spending (19 cents of each $100) but  $350 million got chopped by sequestration.  The result: things like massive delays in court proceedings and a 35 per cent cut in personnel in the Federal Defenders office, a loss of institutional knowledge that will never be recovered.

Excellent read!  Peter Ferrara walks us through the latest Obama assault on the Constitution, this time his refusal to enforce laws he disagrees with.  Surprisingly, this now includes the employer mandate portion of ObamaCare!!!  Why he has to do this however is a stunning story. Bottom line:  The latest jobs report has the economy producing 195,000 new jobs in the past quarter.  The problem is, 100% of these new jobs are part-time.  Thanks to ObamaCare.   "The duties of the President of the United States are spelled out in Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution, which states, inter alia, that the President "shall take Care that the laws be faithfully executed." As Stanford Law Professor and former federal judge Michael McConnell explained in yesterday's Wall Street Journal, "This is a duty, not a discretionary power. While the president does have substantial discretion about how to enforce a law, he has no discretion about whether to do so." Section 1513(d) of the Unaffordable Care Act (aka "Obamacare") states unequivocally, "The amendments made by this section shall apply to months beginning after December 31, 2013." In other words, the provisions of Obamacare become fully effective in 2014, as a matter of duly enacted federal law. But over the long Fourth of July weekend, in a "Never Mind" moment, the Obama Administration announced, through a Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, that contrary to federal law, the employer mandate of Obamacare shall not become fully effective in months beginning after December 31, 2013, but only in months beginning after December 31, 2014. Making the announcement through such a low level Administration official to me says that Obama has contempt for the American people, and for the rule of law. Barack Obama: Lawbreaker But it does not matter who announces it. The President is the one responsible. And the announcement constitutes the assumption of authoritarian powers by President Obama. McCo

excerpt: "A 1981 memorandum by David Stockman during the Reagan administration that is still relied on by the OMB laid out the services that continue without interruption during any government "shutdown": .... National security, including the conduct of foreign relations essential to the national security or the safety of life and property; .... Benefit payments and the performance of contract obligations under no-year or multi-year appropriations or other funds remaining available for those purposes; .... Medical care of inpatients and emergency outpatient care and activities essential for the safe use of food, drugs, and hazardous materials; .... Air-traffic control and other transportation safety functions; Border and coastal protection and surveillance; .... Protection of federal lands, buildings, waterways, and other property of the U.S.; .... Care of prisoners and others in federal custody; .... Law enforcement and criminal investigations; .... Emergency and disaster assistance; .... Activities essential to the preservation of the money and banking system of the U.S., including borrowing and tax collection; .... Production of power and maintenance of the power-distribution system; and .... Protection of research property. So planes, trains, and automobiles will keep running and TSA will keep patting you down. The president can continue to go on overseas trips to conduct foreign relations. Social Security and Medicaid benefits will keep going out. The Border Patrol will keep patrolling our borders to prevent illegal crossings (at least as much as this administration will let it do that). The Federal Bureau of Prisons will keep convicted criminals in prison and the FBI will continue making arrests and investigating violations of the law. The FDA and the Department of Agriculture will continue their safety testing and inspection of food and drugs, and medical care of inpatients and emergency outpatient care will keep right on going. The Fed

Good. The Intelligence community is calling BS on Obama's claim that he didn't know about the spying on foreign heads of allied states. And McCain says we need a select Congressional committee to look into what the president knew and when he knew it. That's an implicit slam of the Feinstein-led Senate Select Committee on Intelligence's oversight of the intelligence agencies and a signal that there is a scandal lurking here. More importantly, a new select committee would not have the same membership as the existing Intelligence Community, which has largely functioned as a rubber stamp for what the intelligence agencies want. We have been down this road before, in the mid-70s, when the Defense Dept. intelligence agencies were caught spying on Americans, leading to the Select Committee investigation headed by former Sen. Frank Church and to the initial passage of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, among other legislation delivering a strong message to the intelligence agencies that what happens within the U.S. is off-limits to them. But that was a lesson forgotten as new technology came along for NSA to play with. If Obama is smart, he will promptly respond to the LA Times article with a clarification that top members of his staff knew and the previous statement dealt only with his personal knowledge. But the Obama Administration has overwhelmingly demonstrated an inability to head off scandals and a big tendency to cover-up rather than get out in front of story, particularly in matters involving the NSA. So we may see a major scandal emerge from this already enormous scandal that is laid directly at Barack Obama's feet, a cover-up scandal.   Who knew what when, where, why, and how? My favorite question. 

More coming related to this story.

A joint resolution to reform campaign finance has been favorably reported out of subcommittee favorably by a subcommittee with an amendment by way of a substitute. The resolution is in the nature of a proposed amendment to the Constitution to overcome Supreme Court precedents allowing virtually unlimited campaign contributions. The substitute amendment is at http://cl.ly/0O3l3w382n2M The substitute, offered by Sen. Durbin, is the result of intense lobbying by Move to Amend, a citizen campaign to pass an amendment that would not only reform campaign spending but also abolish all constitutional rights for corporations. That  campaign has successfull resolutions in support by several states and hundreds of cities. See https://movetoamend.org/ The original senate resolution by Senator Udall was an effort to get out in front of that citizen effort with an extremely watered down version that did not address corporate personhood.   Sen. Durbin's substitute amendment does not go as far as to abolish all constitutional rights of corporations but does provide in section 2 that "Congress  and  the  States  shall  have power to implement and enforce this article by appropriate legislation,  and  may  distinguish  between  natural persons and corporations or other artificial entities created by law, including  by  prohibiting  such  entities  from  spending money to influence elections." Motion to Amend ain't buying it. There in it for the long haul, aiming to pass their amendment by 2030. For the text of their amendment, which has been introduced in the House, see https://movetoamend.org/wethepeopleamendment   

If you're in the market to purchase a few cloud server farms located in the U.S., you may want to hold off until the EU Court of Justice rules. Prices could be tumbling shortly afterward.  In related news, Reps. Zoe Lofgren and Thomas Massie have introduced a bipartisan amendment to the annual Department of Defense Appropriations bill (H.R. 4870) that would prohibit use of the bill's funds to: 1) Conduct warrantless searches of Americans' communications collected and stored by the NSA under Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act. 2) Mandate or request that backdoors for surveillance be built into products or services, except those covered under the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act.

EU Court of Justice decision in regard to a Directive that required communications data retention by telcos/ISPs, finding the Directive invalid as a violation of the right of privacy in communications. Fairly read, paragraph 59 outlaws bulk collection of such records, i.e., it requires the equivalent of a judge-issued search warrant in the U.S. based on probable cause to believe that the particular individual's communications are a legitimate object of a search.  Note also that paragraph 67 effectively forbids transfer of any retained data outside the E.U. So a barrier for NSA sharing of data with GCHQ derived from communications NSA collects from EU communications traffic. Bye-bye, Big Data for GCHQ in the E.U. 

The quoted passage include a link to the public law version of the quoted statute, which includes a definition of "authorized intelligence activities" and a reference indicating the law was codified at 50 U.S.C. 442. But it ain't there in the LII Cornell online version of the Code or in the Senate's online version. The Senate version has a reference saying that it was editorially transferred to another location in a Title dealing with disposal of government records. But the referenced sections do not exist there. So a trip to the law library to check the printed version and Westlaw. At this point I cannot confirm that the statute is still in force. But this is a great example of the evils of tucking substantive legislation into appropriation and other "Christmas Tree" bills. Oregon has a state constitutional provision limiting legislative enactments to a single subject. It's been used as authority by Oregon courts to void legislation on many occasions. But good luck trying to get the federal constitution amended to add a similar limitation.   

Yes, Virginia. We have lost the War on Terror and the piper must be paid. 

Congress, of course, just appropriated $600 million to expand the same program. 

Then numbers are staggering: excerpt: Well, if there is such a thing as the hypothetical "rational economic man," then this "sell everything!" scenario is exactly what will happen because taxes of all kinds, including the all-important income taxes and capital gains taxes, are going to all go up by - hold onto your hats! - almost a third or more next year! Right now, the marginal income tax rates are 10%, 15%, 25%, 28%, 33% and 35%, which is the range of six different tax rates for the few people that make enough money to actually pay any federal income taxes, which seems like such a quaint anachronism these days because more people receive money from the government than people who pay the government, which explains why the budget deficit this year - alone! - is $1.4 trillion or so, and when including the inevitable supplemental appropriations throughout the year, will surely be near staggering $2 trillion, bringing total federal government spending to almost $5 trillion, whereas all the business and personal income taxes collected for the whole year is less than $1.5 trillion!

This out of control Obama fearmongering may be good politics, but it is bad history and bad economics. It is bad history because our current economic woes don't come close to those of the 1930s. At worst, a comparison to the 1981-82 recession might be appropriate. Consider the job losses that Mr. Obama always cites. In the last year, the U.S. economy shed 3.4 million jobs. That's a grim statistic for sure, but represents just 2.2% of the labor force. From November 1981 to October 1982, 2.4 million jobs were lost -- fewer in number than today, but the labor force was smaller. So 1981-82 job losses totaled 2.2% of the labor force, the same as now. Good stats comparing the Roosevelt great depression years, the Carter recession years and the Obama recession years.

The holders [of this debt] are not just banks, but insurance companies, pension funds, foreign lenders, and others. Even so, there is no way to prevent huge, ongoing losses, because the cash flows off of these assets are not sufficient to service the debt. The only question is whether the bondholders appropriately bear those losses, or whether the public bears them inappropriately. A continued policy of protecting all of these bondholders would eventually require U.S. citizens to be put on the hook for something on the order of $10-14 trillion. We are nowhere near the end of this process. We simply cannot make these bad investments whole unless we are willing to hand the next 10-20 years of U.S. private savings over to the bondholders who financed reckless lending.

The banking crisis that began in August 2007 shocked markets and precipitated the Great Recession. To fully explain the banking crisis, one must account for its timing, severity, and global impact. One must also confront a startling historical contrast. If we define "banking crisis" to mean bank failures and system losses exceeding 1 percent of a country's gross domestic product (GDP), we find that in the period 1875-1913, a period of marked expansion in international trade and capital flows comparable to the last three decades, there were only four banking crises worldwide.1 By contrast, in the period 1978-2009, a period of much more extensive bank regulation, central bank intervention, government protection of depositors and other bank creditors, and government control of mortgage markets, about 140 banking crises occurred worldwide. Of these, 20 were more severe than any crisis from the earlier period of 1875-1913, in terms of total bank losses as a percent of GDP. Leading financial economists such as Charles Calomiris have argued that a necessary condition for a banking crisis is government policy that distorts the micro-incentives of banks. Likewise, University of Chicago scholar Richard Posner has argued the banks that got into trouble during the recent crisis were simply taking "risks that seemed appropriate in the environment in which they found themselves."2 In the period 1978-2009, about 140 banking crises occurred worldwide. But then why didn't a banking crisis erupt sooner-say, in the recession years of 1990-1991 or 2001-2002? What changed in recent years that led to business risk-taking capable of wrecking the U.S. housing market and the U.S. banking system and other banking systems throughout the world? Further, why were prudent credit practices reasonably maintained in credit card and commercial mortgage securitization in recent years, but wholly abandoned in residential mortgage securitization?