Friday, September 28, 2012
What I have been afraid to blog about: The ESF and Its History_Part 2
Part two in the files sent to us by Scarecrow.
Thursday, September 27, 2012
Wednesday, September 26, 2012
Pastors pledge to defy IRS, preach politics from pulpit ahead of election
More than 1,000 pastors are planning to challenge the IRS next
month by deliberately preaching politics ahead of the presidential
election despite a federal ban on endorsements from the pulpit.
The defiant move, they hope, will prompt the IRS to enforce a 1954 tax code amendment that prohibits tax-exempt organizations, such as churches, from making political endorsements. Alliance Defending Freedom, which is holding the October summit, said it wants the IRS to press the matter so it can be decided in court. The group believes the law violates the First Amendment by “muzzling” preachers.
“The purpose is to make sure that the pastor -- and not the IRS --
decides what is said from the pulpit,” Erik Stanley, senior legal
counsel for the group, told FoxNews.com. “It is a head-on constitutional
challenge.”
Stanley said pastors attending the Oct. 7 “Pulpit Freedom Sunday” will “preach sermons that will talk about the candidates running for office” and then “make a specific recommendation.”
“We’re hoping the IRS will respond by doing what they have threatened,” he said. “We have to wait for it to be applied to a particular church or pastor so that we can challenge it in court. We don’t think it’s going to take long for a judge to strike this down as unconstitutional.”
An amendment was made to the IRS tax code in 1954, stating that tax-exempt organizations are “absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office.”
“Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise tax,” the IRS says in its online guide for churches and religious organizations seeking tax exemption.
Stanley and others, like San Diego pastor Jim Garlow, say the IRS regularly threatens churches that they will lose their tax-exempt status if they preach politics. But Stanley and Garlow claim the government never acts on the threat because it wants to avoid a court battle.
“It is blatantly unconstitutional,” said Stanley. “They just prefer to put out these vague statements and regulations and enforce it through a system of intimidation … Pastors are afraid to address anything political from the pulpit.”
“The IRS will send out notices from time to time and say you crossed the line,” added Garlow, a senior pastor of Skyline Wesleyan Church in San Diego. “But when it’s time to go to court, they close the case.”
A spokeswoman for the IRS did not comment on the matter and instead referred all inquiries to the government’s online handbook
.
Garlow and other pastors say their concerns over the code extend well beyond the law.
“I’m very concerned about the spiritual side of this,” Garlow told FoxNews.com. “There’s a phenomenon occurring in America and that’s a loss of religious liberty.”
“If I would have said 50 years that ‘Tearing up a baby in the womb is a bad thing,’ people would have said ‘Of course it is,’” Garlow said. “But If I said that today, people would say ‘Pastor, you’re being too political.”
The defiant move, they hope, will prompt the IRS to enforce a 1954 tax code amendment that prohibits tax-exempt organizations, such as churches, from making political endorsements. Alliance Defending Freedom, which is holding the October summit, said it wants the IRS to press the matter so it can be decided in court. The group believes the law violates the First Amendment by “muzzling” preachers.
“The purpose is to make sure that the pastor -- and not the IRS -- decides what is said from the pulpit."- Erik Stanley, Alliance Defending Freedom
Stanley said pastors attending the Oct. 7 “Pulpit Freedom Sunday” will “preach sermons that will talk about the candidates running for office” and then “make a specific recommendation.”
“We’re hoping the IRS will respond by doing what they have threatened,” he said. “We have to wait for it to be applied to a particular church or pastor so that we can challenge it in court. We don’t think it’s going to take long for a judge to strike this down as unconstitutional.”
An amendment was made to the IRS tax code in 1954, stating that tax-exempt organizations are “absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office.”
“Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise tax,” the IRS says in its online guide for churches and religious organizations seeking tax exemption.
Stanley and others, like San Diego pastor Jim Garlow, say the IRS regularly threatens churches that they will lose their tax-exempt status if they preach politics. But Stanley and Garlow claim the government never acts on the threat because it wants to avoid a court battle.
“It is blatantly unconstitutional,” said Stanley. “They just prefer to put out these vague statements and regulations and enforce it through a system of intimidation … Pastors are afraid to address anything political from the pulpit.”
“The IRS will send out notices from time to time and say you crossed the line,” added Garlow, a senior pastor of Skyline Wesleyan Church in San Diego. “But when it’s time to go to court, they close the case.”
A spokeswoman for the IRS did not comment on the matter and instead referred all inquiries to the government’s online handbook
.Garlow and other pastors say their concerns over the code extend well beyond the law.
“I’m very concerned about the spiritual side of this,” Garlow told FoxNews.com. “There’s a phenomenon occurring in America and that’s a loss of religious liberty.”
“If I would have said 50 years that ‘Tearing up a baby in the womb is a bad thing,’ people would have said ‘Of course it is,’” Garlow said. “But If I said that today, people would say ‘Pastor, you’re being too political.”
Tuesday, September 25, 2012
Has this been lost?
Textualism is an approach to the interpretation of statutes and the U.S. Constitution
that focuses on the text itself and its plain meaning rather than
inquiring into the purpose of those who wrote the text. Under this view
the legislative history of a statute is insignificant and should not be
allowed to trump the text itself.
In the words of the leading proponent of textualism, Justice Antonin Scalia, statutory text always trumps "unenacted legislative intent."[1]
In the words of the leading proponent of textualism, Justice Antonin Scalia, statutory text always trumps "unenacted legislative intent."[1]
Monday, September 24, 2012
Friday, September 21, 2012
This will leave you shocked.
Thanks Scarecrow. This is one of several he has unearthed for us to watch. This will make you scratch your head. It wreaks of genuine "conspiracy theory". Unbelievable. More in weeks to come.
Thursday, September 20, 2012
Tax penalty to hit nearly 6M uninsured people, under ObamaCare
Nearly 6 million Americans -- most of them in the middle class
-- will face a tax penalty for not carrying medical coverage once
President Barack Obama's health care overhaul law is fully in place,
congressional budget analysts said Wednesday.
The new estimate amounts to an inconvenient fact for the administration, a reminder of what critics see as broken promises.
The numbers from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office are significantly higher than a previous projection by the same office in 2010, shortly after the law passed.
The earlier estimate found 4 million people would be affected. The difference -- 2 million people-- represents a 50 percent increase.
That's still only a sliver of the population, given that more than 150 million people currently are covered by employer plans. Nonetheless, in his first campaign for the White House, Obama pledged not to raise taxes on individuals making less than $200,000 a year and couples making less than $250,000.
And the budget office analysis found that nearly 80 percent of those who'll face the penalty would be making up to or less than five times the federal poverty level. Currently that would work out to $55,850 or less for an individual and $115,250 or less for a family of four.
Average penalty: about $1,200 in 2016.
"The bad news and broken promises from Obamacare just keep piling up," said Rep. Dave Camp, R-Mich., chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, who wants to repeal the law.
There was no immediate response from the administration.
The budget office said most of the increase in its estimate is due to changes in underlying projections about the economy, incorporating the effects of new federal legislation, as well as higher unemployment and lower wages.
Starting in 2014, the new health care law requires virtually every legal resident of the U.S. to carry health insurance or face a tax penalty. The Supreme Court upheld Obama's law as constitutional in a 5-4 decision this summer, finding that the insurance mandate and the tax penalty enforcing it fall within the power of Congress to impose taxes. The penalty will be collected by the IRS, just like taxes.
The budget office said the penalty will raise $6.9 billion when fully in effect in 2016.
The new law will also provide government aid to help middle-class and low-income households afford coverage, the financial carrot that balances out the penalty.
Nonetheless, some people might still decide to remain uninsured because they object to government mandates or because they feel they would come out ahead financially even if they have to pay the penalty. Health insurance is expensive, with employer-provided family coverage averaging nearly $15,800 a year for a family and $4,300 for a single plan.
The Supreme Court allowed individual states to opt out of a major Medicaid expansion under the law. The Obama administration says it will exempt low-income people affected by state decisions from having to comply with the insurance mandate.
Most Americans will not have to worry about the insurance requirement since they already have coverage through employers, government programs like Medicare or by buying their own policies.
Many Republicans still regard the insurance mandate as unconstitutional and rue the day the Supreme Court upheld it.
However, the idea for an individual insurance requirement comes from Republican health care plans in the 1990s.
It's also a central element of the 2006 Massachusetts health care law signed by then-GOP Gov. Mitt Romney, now running against Obama and promising to repeal the federal law. The approach seems to have worked well in Massachusetts, with virtually all residents covered and dwindling numbers opting to pay the penalty instead.
The new estimate amounts to an inconvenient fact for the administration, a reminder of what critics see as broken promises.
The numbers from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office are significantly higher than a previous projection by the same office in 2010, shortly after the law passed.
The earlier estimate found 4 million people would be affected. The difference -- 2 million people-- represents a 50 percent increase.
That's still only a sliver of the population, given that more than 150 million people currently are covered by employer plans. Nonetheless, in his first campaign for the White House, Obama pledged not to raise taxes on individuals making less than $200,000 a year and couples making less than $250,000.
And the budget office analysis found that nearly 80 percent of those who'll face the penalty would be making up to or less than five times the federal poverty level. Currently that would work out to $55,850 or less for an individual and $115,250 or less for a family of four.
Average penalty: about $1,200 in 2016.
"The bad news and broken promises from Obamacare just keep piling up," said Rep. Dave Camp, R-Mich., chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, who wants to repeal the law.
There was no immediate response from the administration.
The budget office said most of the increase in its estimate is due to changes in underlying projections about the economy, incorporating the effects of new federal legislation, as well as higher unemployment and lower wages.
Starting in 2014, the new health care law requires virtually every legal resident of the U.S. to carry health insurance or face a tax penalty. The Supreme Court upheld Obama's law as constitutional in a 5-4 decision this summer, finding that the insurance mandate and the tax penalty enforcing it fall within the power of Congress to impose taxes. The penalty will be collected by the IRS, just like taxes.
The budget office said the penalty will raise $6.9 billion when fully in effect in 2016.
The new law will also provide government aid to help middle-class and low-income households afford coverage, the financial carrot that balances out the penalty.
Nonetheless, some people might still decide to remain uninsured because they object to government mandates or because they feel they would come out ahead financially even if they have to pay the penalty. Health insurance is expensive, with employer-provided family coverage averaging nearly $15,800 a year for a family and $4,300 for a single plan.
The Supreme Court allowed individual states to opt out of a major Medicaid expansion under the law. The Obama administration says it will exempt low-income people affected by state decisions from having to comply with the insurance mandate.
Most Americans will not have to worry about the insurance requirement since they already have coverage through employers, government programs like Medicare or by buying their own policies.
Many Republicans still regard the insurance mandate as unconstitutional and rue the day the Supreme Court upheld it.
However, the idea for an individual insurance requirement comes from Republican health care plans in the 1990s.
It's also a central element of the 2006 Massachusetts health care law signed by then-GOP Gov. Mitt Romney, now running against Obama and promising to repeal the federal law. The approach seems to have worked well in Massachusetts, with virtually all residents covered and dwindling numbers opting to pay the penalty instead.
Wednesday, September 19, 2012
Tuesday, September 18, 2012
Lawmaker: Vikes Stadium Deal Worse than Thought for Taxpayers
Bob Barrett continues to make us proud in Chisago, go get 'em Bob!
Rep. Bob Barrett, a Republican from Lindstrom, says personal seat license revenue will likely allow team owners to recoup their investment.
Besides revenue from stadium naming rights and a contribution from the NFL, Barrett says the Wilf brothers will collect revenue from personal seat licenses. Barrett calculates the Wilfs can earn up to $350 million dollars in personal seat license revenue. The calculation is based on figures released by the San Francisco 49ers.
The 49ers are building a new stadium. However, personal seat license revenue in San Francisco will be used to pay the public portion of the $950 million stadium.
In Minnesota, the Wilf's get any money associated personal seat licenses.
Taxpayers will likely never know the exact profit or loss since the Vikings are a private entity and not required to make such disclosures.
From Channel 5. See the video @ http://www.kstp.com/article/12303/?vid=3757015&v=1
Monday, September 17, 2012
Friday, September 14, 2012
Help Lindstrom.
Tomorrow is Saturday the 15th. We as conservatives, libertarians and Republicans all believe in Capitalism. Let's help our South Chisago neighbors. They have been under construction all summer. We need to make our stop and each spend $20. Don't forget to show your colors. Wear your favorite candidates shirts!
Thursday, September 13, 2012
Wednesday, September 12, 2012
Bills Calls for Halt of Aid to Egypt and Libya
BLOOMINGTON, MN — Today Kurt Bills renewed his call to eliminate aid to Egypt and Libya, where in separate incidents yesterday US diplomatic compounds were invaded by Islamists.
J. Christopher Stevens, the Ambassador to Libya, was killed along with 3 others Americans, including 2 US Marines. Militants burned the American flag in Egypt, replacing it with their own militant flag after storming the embassy unhindered by Egyptian authorities.
Bills released the following statement regarding the incidents:
“Obama’s Middle East policies supported by Klobuchar are clearly not working.”
“Nobody should think they can attack Americans with impunity. And Americans shouldn’t apologize after suffering such an attack.”
“I believe our foreign aid to hostile countries should be eliminated. It’s just common sense.”
“The US sends $1 1/2 billion dollars a year to Egypt, even though the country is hostile to America. That is $1 1/2 billion in debt from China our children will have to repay. That should stop. Today,” said Bills.
Bills also called for the elimination of aid to other countries both hostile to the US and oppressive to their own citizens, such as Pakistan and Somalia. The Pakistanis are persecuting the doctor who helped the US find and kill bin Laden, while the Somalis are systematically killing their citizens in the Ogaden.
Egypt and Pakistan are the 2nd and 3rd largest recipients of foreign aid.
Tuesday, September 11, 2012
Monday, September 10, 2012
Friday, September 7, 2012
What's good for the goose......
Voter supression? Ahh, I toss the B.S. flag. Have you looked at what it takes to get into the DNC? A state issued photo I.D. Don't believe me, check it for yourself.
http://www.demconvention.com/official-providers-distribution/
http://www.demconvention.com/official-providers-distribution/
Thursday, September 6, 2012
DNC Drops ‘God-Given’ From Party Platform
They still think that they are the party of the people. I think they are confused!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Democratic National Committee has removed the term “God-given” from its platform.
This is the paragraph that was in the 2008 platform, the Christian Broadcasting Network reports:
“We need a government that stands up for the hopes, values, and interests of working people, and gives everyone willing to work hard the chance to make the most of their God-given potential.”
The paragraph now says this:
“We gather to reclaim the basic bargain that built the largest middle class and the most prosperous nation on Earth – the simple principle that in America, hard work should pay off, responsibility should be rewarded, and each one of us should be able to go as far as our talent and drive take us.”
Delegates will vote on the party platform Tuesday at the convention in Charlotte, N.C.
Calls to the DNC seeking comment were not returned, according to the Christian website, which criticized the DNC:
“Some critics will suggest that when you have planks in your platform that support abortion rights and gay marriage then it's no wonder that God's name would be dropped as well."
Only one section of the platform deals with “faith," CBN said. Here is that paragraph:
“Faith has always been a central part of the American story, and it has been a driving force of progress and justice throughout our history. We know that our nation, our communities, and our lives are made vastly stronger and richer by faith and the countless acts of justice and mercy it inspires. Faith- based organizations will always be critical allies in meeting the challenges that face our nation and our world – from domestic and global poverty, to climate change and human trafficking. People of faith and religious organizations do amazing work in communities across this country and the world, and we believe in lifting up and valuing that good work, and finding ways to support it where possible. We believe in constitutionally sound, evidence-based partnerships with faith-based and other non-profit organizations to serve those in need and advance our shared interests. There is no conflict between supporting faith-based institutions and respecting our Constitution, and a full commitment to both principles is essential for the continued flourishing of both faith and country.”
© 2012 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Wednesday, September 5, 2012
Tuesday, September 4, 2012
DNC Starts today, what lies are to be spread?
Well, today officially starts the longest week of the year. I will do the wrap up of it before it starts. Blah, blah, blah, blah ...... Bushes fault........blah, blah, blah, blah..................HOPE................blah, blah,blah,blah.........CHANGE...................blah,blah,blah,blah...............better off than four years ago...............blah,blah,blah......Republicans hate women and old people...............blah,blah,blah,blah..........FORWARD.
Am I close? Let's decide Friday.
Am I close? Let's decide Friday.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)