Regarding the friendly disagreement between the Bard and myself, Bush and Cheney already enjoy undeserved folk hero status, and within the far right realms, they will always enjoy such status regardless of outcome.
I appreciate the debate.
Certainly not many of you follow the ongoings of cases where people try to take advantage of tax laws to benefit themselves because the law itself is murky. However, there is a case that is drawing much attention unto itself, because of the nature of the "supposed" crime.
A fellow citizen who thought himself smart saw a loophole in the way he could pay his employees. If he payed them with gold or silver, which has to still be recognized by our society as a legal form of payment, he could give them more for less. This worked in the way that the legal system binds the value of these metals, to the current standings on the market. However when tax time comes around you are only taxed on the "face" value of the metals, not the current value of the market.
Citation is here
http://www.lvrj.com/news/48145032.html
and here http://www.lvrj.com/news/46074037.html.
Now to do this is wrong...absolutely not, seeing as the law is clear on how it wll tax its citizens and what is legal in payment. However, the point they are trying to make, is that this is fraud ...tax fraud because the person doing the action is doing this on purpose to avoid paying taxes.
OF COURSE HE IS, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU GAVE AWAY OUR MONEY TO BIGGER CRIMINALS (GM, CHRYSLER) AND WE HAD NO SAY IN THIS!
So he is trying to save a few people from paying more money then they have to. If I get a slip saying I can not deduct a full amount of gas receipts on my business because technically the gas is also used for personal use, then send me a letter saying I can only report 80% or something likewise...dont bring me to jail because I did not quite know you could only declare a percentage.
They are trying to say he meant to avoid paying taxes, but then so was I when I declared 100% and not 80% of my gas receipts! This is a government that stone walls other investigations which could impact this one, on purpose because they do not want to give a chance to the defendant to have the upper hand. I am talking about an unlawful seizure by the FBI and IRS and the defendants home without proper warrants prepared, yet that case which was started before this one, has yet to see the light of day, and should that case rule that the seizure was unwarranted, then it would be thrown out of court, yet you can not discuss another case that has yet to be tried, therefor, it was a tactic to stone wall that is now leaving the defendant without any options.
He payed his employees with gold, the employees could have refused and he would have paid them cash, or cheque, but they accepted....so who is really at fault...the employer, employee or the goverment for not seeing that one law presided over another?
The government sees this action as a possible sore point where people will end up paying less taxes and the value of gold keep climbing, which BTW we have no real mines left in the US, all te gold mines are off this continent, we would end up being again stuck with foreign policies dictating our current economy!
I am signing out, however I think about Obama going off to jail because he gave as a gift to someone, a friend or family member, some gold coins and was found guilty of fraud. Can a gift be taxed, I don't know ....luckily I live in Canada!!!
The landmark decision of Brown v. The Board of Education reversed the term derived from Plessy v. Ferguson of "separate but equal." Here is a glimpse into Brown v. Board of Education and Justice Thurgood Marshall.
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-5067-LA-School-District-Examiner~y2009m5d17-Americans-celebrate-the-55th-anniversary-landmark-case-Brown-v-Board-of-Education
I realize that this is a sensitive topic, special education funding. It's a subject that must be discussed because the funding is crippling schools. The government mandates the programs under the IDEA, but makes local school districts pay. Read about schools in ruins in California.
http://www.examiner.com/x-5067-LA-School-District-Examiner~y2009m5d13-Special-education-funding-or-lack-thereof-force-school-districts-to-suffer
It is no surprise Dick Cheney and people responsible for enacting torture and cruelty to prisoners are crying foul now. Cheney and the whole bunch are criminals returning to the scene of their crimes. Finding out information by committing War crimes has no defense, whatsoever!
It is my opinion that looking forward requires us to investigate the use of "enhanced interrogation techniques" and warrantless suveillance in the Patriot Act. If these are truly violations of the Constitution, domestic laws, and/or international laws, we NEED to prosecute.
If we let transgressions of this type slide under times of emotional response, we risk a repeat of this type of violations. The reason the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and laws forbid torture and warrantless searches (as well as all the others) is precisely so we CAN'T overreact out of fear or anger. To do nothing is to set a precedent that there are circumstances where it is okay not discard the Constitution and ignore the laws.
We are either a nation of laws or we are not. By 'looking forward' while ignoring possible abuses and violations means we are not. It also undermines our ability to hold other countries and entities to this standard. We MUST abide by the standards and principles we espouse. If we don't our country is a lie.
LinkedInMyra Spearman has sent you a message.Date: 3/31/2009Subject: CALL TO ACTION - PLEASE FORWARDHello Everyone: Today, I spoke with Illinois State Representative, Robert Pritchard. He is a long time proponent of abating domestic and family abuse. He needs to hear from everyone. I asked him to author legislation called, "Duncan and Jack Law" which would only allow "Supervised Visits" to non-custodial parents who have either1). Violated Orders of Protection and/or2). Received a Guilty Conviction stemming from domestic and or family violence.Before ordering visitation, a judge needs to make sure that there was no abuse in the home. If abuse is determined, the non-custodial parent should either be granted Supervised Visitation or No Visitation Previlidges at all. Please email him and let him know that you're in support of this legislation or similiar legislation.bob@pritchardstaterep.comIf you have something better to add please feel free... anything helps...Duncan and Jack are the 2 little children that lost their lives this week at the hand of their father. You can read the story at:http://www.chicagotribune.com/ news/local/chi-missing-boys-dead-31-...Below is a copy of the letter I sent to the Illinois Rep. I'm going to be sending it to NYS as well.There's not a Congressman, Senator, etc... that should say no to this.Dear Sir:I am creator and administrator of the web community Please Help Missing Children.http://helpthesechildren.ning.com/Sir, the loss of Jack and Duncan Connolly is beyond tragic. The actions of the law enforcement involved in this case was a detriment that led to their deaths. They did not take seriously the severity of their father's condition, nor did they act on the information they were given. The Amber Alert for the boys was far from long enough. This should NOT have happened. Had there been a law in effect designed to PROTECT our children in the event of a mentally ill parent, the deaths of Jack and Duncan may have been prevented.PLEASE author legislation called, "Duncan and Jack Law" which would only allow "Supervised Visits" to non-custodial parents who have either1). Violated Orders of Protection and/or2). Received a Guilty Conviction stemming from domestic and or family violence.Before ordering visitation, a judge needs to make sure that there was no abuse in the home. If abuse is determined, the non-custodial parent should either be granted Supervised Visitation or No Visitation Previlidges at all.Someone that may be a strong supporter of this would be Congressman Gary Miller.SincerelyKathryn ComstockAdministratorPlease Help Missing Children
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Diane Tikacs, a former neighbor of the Connolly family when they lived in Algonquin, signs a poster for Duncan Connolly at a memorial in the northwest suburb. The boys were killed by their father who then took his own life. (Tribune photo by Nuccio DiNuzzo / March 30, 2009)
BATTERED EXAMINING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
2 boys found dead; mom rips the courtsAfter 3-week search, boys are found dead with their dad in central Illinois; mother decries system that OKd unsupervised visitsBy Jo Napolitano, Carolyn Starks and Joel Hood | Tribune reportersMarch 31, 2009
Amy Leichtenberg worried this day would come, and she begged the judicial system to prevent it.
In court documents dating back to 2005, she detailed her estranged husband's threats against her family and fought unsuccessfully to keep him from having unsupervised visits with their two sons. Michael Connolly violated the orders of protection against him six times, police records said, and he often vowed to kill himself rather than be separated from the boys.
Connolly, 40, disappeared with Duncan, 9, and Jack, 7, on March 8, prompting a nationwide search. Their bodies were discovered Sunday near a Christmas tree farm in a remote area of Putnam County.
Police described the deaths as a double homicide and a suicide, but released few details about the killings. The boys' bodies were found in the back seat of their father's 1991 Dodge Dynasty, while Connolly's body was discovered about 60 yards away.Leichtenberg declined to comment Monday, but she issued a statement lashing out at the judicial system that allowed Connolly unsupervised visits.
"No parent should have to bury their babies," she said. "Duncan and Jack, Mommy loves you to the heavens and back.
"I feel that the judicial system failed me," she said. "I pray that the courts listen to the warnings from other parents like me."
Though Connolly and Leichtenberg lived in northwest suburban Algonquin for several years, much of their bitter custody battle took place in LeRoy, a small town near Bloomington where Leichtenberg moved with the boys after ending her marriage. She received orders of protection against Connolly there, including a current order, barring him from contact with her.
Connolly, an unemployed pharmaceutical salesman, violated the order six times but was only charged with four misdemeanors between July 2006 and October 2007, McLean County State's Atty. William Yoder said. He met with Connolly for an hour a few months ago at Connolly's request and believed him to be "unbalanced," Yoder said.
He declined to discuss his office's specific involvement in the custody battle.
"This was a tragic event," Yoder said. "This had the worst possible outcome."
Police began a search for Connolly and the boys three weeks ago when he failed to return them after a scheduled visit. McLean Sheriff Mike Emery conceded there was a delay in the Amber Alert about the abduction, saying the department's initial attempt did not meet all of the criteria required for the notification. Pressed to discuss the delay, the sheriff said he would not criticize the investigation.
At LeRoy Elementary School, where Duncan was in 3rd grade and Jack was in 2nd, the brothers' desks had been left untouched since their disappearance. Blue and green ribbons, the boys' favorite colors, were tied to trees, and parents taped pictures of the missing brothers inside their car windshields.
"In small towns something like this affects the whole town, not just one pocket or one neighborhood," LeRoy Supt. Gary Tipsord said. "We had prepared for a lot of different outcomes, but I don't think any of us expected this."
Putnam County authorities discovered Connolly's car about 5 p.m. Sunday near a Christmas tree farm about 8 miles south of Hennepin. Police say they do not know of any connection between the family and the secluded site.
Police would not say how long the bodies had been there, if they suffered obvious injuries or whether a weapon was recovered.
Connolly's aunt, Joyce Connolly, said his family rarely saw him after the couple separated.
"I feel sorry for Michael," she said. "I know that sounds terrible, but he must have been so tormented."
Court records and police accounts portray Connolly as an abusive husband who tried to force Leichtenberg to stay in their marriage. He threatened to cut open her and her parents and once told Jack that he would find "a younger, prettier, nicer mama," according to court documents.
When Connolly sensed Leichtenberg was about to leave him in 2006, she said he pressured her to sign a paper giving him custody of the boys if they divorced. He also demanded his wife make a videotape in which she claimed to abuse her sons, Leichtenberg said. It's not clear she did either.
"He went into a rage again and told me if I didn't get home he would kill me. I went home, and he told me if I ever take his boys again he would hunt me down and kill me and my parents and cut us open," Amy Leichtenberg wrote in her petition for an emergency order of protection in July 2005 in McHenry County Circuit Court.
Neighbors realized something was wrong with the couple's marriage shortly after they moved into their Algonquin neighborhood in 2003. Friends described Connolly as "controlling" and "manipulative" toward his wife and sons. Leichtenberg often would use neighbors' telephones to call her parents because her husband didn't like her speaking with them.
"She could never live a normal life," former next-door neighbor Jim Gerardi said. "That's the sad part about it, because he was watching every single move she made."
While Connolly was out of town on a business trip in 2006, neighbors said they helped Leichtenberg pack her car, and she and the kids sought refuge at a domestic violence shelter.
Leichtenberg filed for divorce in May 2006 in McHenry Circuit Court. In her petition, she described hundreds of harassing phone messages her husband left for her and her family.
In the messages, Connolly outlined stipulations for the divorce: He wanted visitation with his sons alone and one day a week with Amy alone and promised not to hurt them, court documents said.
Leichtenberg withdrew the petition without explanation in December 2006. She returned to the family's home in Algonquin, but neighbors said she hid inside the house and rarely socialized after the reconciliation.
The couple separated again a short time later, and Leichtenberg moved to LeRoy, where a bitter custody battle ignited. She wrote in court documents in April 2007 that he had called her home and her cell at least 18 times.
In a Tribune interview after the boys disappeared, Leichtenberg said Connolly was granted unsupervised visitation rights in December. She said she begged the McLean judge to deny the request.
"All Michael would do is file his own motions, and the judge was basically tired of him and gave him what he wanted."
Tribune reporters Andrew L. Wang and Stacy St. Clair contributed to this report.
<a href="jnapolitano@tribune.com">jnapolitano@tribune.com</a>
<a href="cstarks@tribune.com">cstarks@tribune.com</a>
<a href="jhood@tribune.com">jhood@tribune.com</a>
<a href="http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-missing-boys-dead-31-mar31,0,3316104.story?page=2">http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-missing-boys-dead-31-m...</a>
Daniel Zamlen - Endangered Missing - Minnesota
Nathaly Alonzo 12 - Abducted - Delaware
Joshua David Avara 11 - Abducted - Texas
Sandra Cantu 8 - FOUND DECEASED
JACK CONNOLLY 7 - FOUND DECEASED - KILLED BY NON-CUSTODIAL FATHER WITH VIOLENT HISTORY - NO SUPERVISED VISITATION
DUNCAN CONNOLLY 9 - FOUND DECEASED - KILLED BY NON-CUSTODIAL FATHER WITH VIOLENT HISTORY - NO SUPERVISED VISITATION
BRITTANY WELLS 17 - SUSPECTED RUNAWAY - NORTH DAKOTA
Rochelle Denise Battle 16 - MISSING - MARYLAND
ALLYSON CORRALES 4 - ENDANGERED MISSING - MISSOURI
Mariah Sparks - MISSING CHILD - ALABAMA
Amber Leeanne Dubois - Endangered Missing - California
Haleigh Cummings - Endangered Missing - Florida
Tierny Perry 16 - Endangered Runaway - Florida
Adji "Ji Ji" Desir - Endangered Missing - Florida
SAMANTHA CHER HOWELL 15 - ENDANGERED RUNAWAY - NEW MEXICO
Jeff Renaud - Missing - Ontario
Crystal Ann Fox - Missing - California
Mystic Dawn Salazar - Missing - Colorado
Omar Qutaiba Mahoud - Abducted - New Mexico
Nadia Mahmoud - Abducted - New Mexico
Pebbles Jace - Missing Endangered - California
Max-Gian (Max-Jon) Alcalde 7 - Missing - Idaho
Ashley Nicole Lopez 18 - Endangered Runaway - New Mexico
Wendy Rameriz-Beristain - Endangered Missing - Florida
Marlene Torales - Endangered Missing - California
Claudia Vanessa Yat - Endangered Missing - California
Tangena Hussain 2 - Endangered Missing - Michigan
Jaliek "Jay" Rainwalker 12 - Endangered Missing - New York
Elian Amilcar Majano 2 - Endangered - Texas
Benjamin “Ben” Melvin Roseland - Missing - Iowa
Yasmin Acree - Missing - Illinois
Amy Fitzapatrick - Missing - Spain
Adrian Gonzalez 7 - Endangered Missing - Florida
Neida Rodriguez-Gonzalez 3 - Endangered Missing - Florida
Thor Danielsson Wang 1 - Endangered Missing - California
AMBER ADELIA BITTINGER 15 - ENDANGERED RUNAWAY - NEW MEXICO
Latoya Fleming 6 - Endangered Missing - New York
JOANNA CANO 15 & ANGEL 6 mo. - "PERSON OF INTEREST" WANTED FOR 1ST DEGREE MURDER - NORTH CAROLINA
XYLONIA BEGAY - MISSING - NEW MEXICO
MADELEINE MCCANN 4 - MISSING - INTERNATIONAL
Tabitha Tudor 18 - Endangered Missing - Tennessee
Kyle Fleischmann - Missing - North Carolina
Justin Gaines - Missing - Georgia
Donna Jou - Missing - California
Jason Michael Rourk - Missing - Georgia
Jennifer Keese - Missing - Florida
Mark Degner - Missing - Florida
Brian Hayes - Missing - Florida
Maura Murray - Missing - New Hampshire
Tabitha Tudors - Missing - Tennessee
Branson Perry - Missing - Missouri
Suzanne "Suzy" Gloria Lyall - Missing - New York
Karen Wilson - Missing - New York
Michael Mayfield - Endangered Missing - Texas
Pamela Mayfield - Endangered Missing - Texas
I saw in the paper two years ago while eating breakfast in a charming diner in West Oakland a picture of Junchiro Koizumi the prime minister of Japan trying on a pair of sunglasses once worn by Elvis in the presence of, in order away from him, Priscilla Presley, Lisa Marie Presley, George Bush, and lastly Laura Bush.
A whirlwind tour had apparently been arranged for the Prime Minister. Below in the story written by two staff writers at the New York Times an event was described in which the Prime Minister grabs Lisa marie by the waist while singing Hold me Close after which George claps him on the shoulder and shakes his hand. This is seen by the writers as the president putting a stop to a morally questionable action or perhaps as the protection of Lisa Marie. This presumes either that Lisa Marie was unable to handle herself in that situation or that the Prime Minister was subject to an, by American standards, offensive moral ideology. This impression is intensified by describing the president as an ex drinking and incredibly fit hero wandering around in the palace of The King, who was famous for his lascivious and drug addled lifestyle.
One may at a casual glance presume that morality and law are very similar. In fact one may go so far as to assume that law is to society as morality is to interpersonal relations. This connection is dubious at best. Legally they are like heat and light, always co-existent but not the same.
We are the proud inheritors of a constitutional republic. In essence our political system, here in America, is a democracy tempered by a constitution. The function of the constitution is to disallow egregious insults on the rights of any citizen and to define the extent to which morals may intrude upon law.
Morals are subjective. One may find the exposing of flesh inappropriate. It would then behoove that person to wear a lot of clothing. Others however may feel or even be constrained by religion to wear as little as possible. The more politically inclined among these populations may make an effort to legislate their moral leanings, thereby infringing the rights of their opposition. This is made impossible, presumably, by the constitution by circumscribing the extent to which morals may intrude upon law.
The war on Terror is an interesting effort legally. It engages the misunderstood powers of the presidency in times of war and creates a schism in the crisp differentiation between moral beliefs and law. Examples are rife these days. Same sex marriage, pornography, school prayer, drug and alcohol policy, flag burning, abortion, all of these exploit subtle differentiations within the law concerning the separation of law and religion or moral ideology.
The degree of extremity of belief seems to be the turning point. If a group within the general population believes with sufficient extremity in a moral proposition it must then be considered by law. The law is, again, prevented by the constitution from legislating morality and from an abridging of the rights of the few by the vote of the majority.
The war on Terror has come home. It has been on its way but is now fully through the door and has been invited. Here in the United States we passed the "Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007"
Here is a quote from the homeland security webpage about the bill; "We must intervene before a person crosses the line separating radical views from violent behavior, create an environment that discourages disillusionment and alienation, and instill in young people a sense of belonging and faith in the future"
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-1955 The full text of the bill, "Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007".
http://homeland.house.gov/about/subcommittees.asp?ID=287&SubSection=0&Is This is the DOHS's brief on the above bill.
http://www.dhs.gov/xres/programs/editorial_0498.shtm This is a page from the DOHS website. It outlines the "Centers for Excellence" program and lists the institutions involved with links and the tasks each is charged with.
This is a disturbing development in the world of counter+errorism. A self empowerment which outlines plans to snip in the bud, the, according to the authors, evolution of radicals to terrorists via a plethora of studies by institutions both public and private collated and made judgment upon by a central commission whose sole responsibility is to, "Examine and report upon the facts and causes of violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence in the United States, including United States connections to non-United States persons and networks, violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence in prison, individual or `lone wolf' violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence, and other faces of the phenomena of violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence that the Commission considers important."
A report was mandated within eighteen months, submitted to the president and congress, it was to consist of "Findings and conclusions, legislative recommendations for immediate and long-term countermeasures to violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence, and measures that can be taken to prevent violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence from developing and spreading within the United States, and any final recommendations for any additional grant programs to support these purposes. The report may also be accompanied by a classified annex."
Also there is to be formed a network of cooperative "Centers for Excellence" Check the link above for a list Here is the relevant quote from the bill… "The Secretary of Homeland Security shall establish or designate a university-based Center of Excellence for the Study of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism in the United States (hereinafter referred to as `Center') following the merit-review processes and procedures and other limitations that have been previously established for selecting and supporting University Programs Centers of Excellence. The Center shall assist Federal, State, local and tribal homeland security officials through training, education, and research in preventing violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism in the United States. In carrying out this section, the Secretary may choose to either create a new Center designed exclusively for the purpose stated herein or identify and expand an existing Department of Homeland Security Center of Excellence so that a working group is exclusively designated within the existing Center of Excellence to achieve the purpose set forth in subsection (b). `(b) Purpose- It shall be the purpose of the Center to study the social, criminal, political, psychological, and economic roots of violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism in the United States and methods that can be utilized by Federal, State, local, and tribal homeland security officials to mitigate violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism"
Of course the beginning of the bill contains definitions; here are some of them,
VIOLENT RADICALIZATION- The term `violent radicalization' means the process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change.
HOMEGROWN TERRORISM- The term `homegrown terrorism' means the use, planned use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual born, raised, or based and operating primarily within the United States or any possession of the United States to intimidate or coerce the United States government, the civilian population of the United States, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.
IDEOLOGICALLY BASED VIOLENCE- The term `ideologically based violence' means the use, planned use, or threatened use of force or violence by a group or individual to promote the group or individual's political, religious, or social beliefs.
I am speechless, probably because I am holding my breath until that report comes out. Unfortunately there will be a classified annex to the report which we the public will not have access to. I guess you noticed that the "Centers for Excellence" are charged with training and informing operatives within the DOHS.
This appears to be outside the parameters of the bill as written and allude to a future time in which the information gathered and the obvious agenda are brought together, decisions made and acted upon that presumably shall imperil political dissidents all over the nation. I wonder; will they be considered innocent before proven guilty? What will be the determined definition of guilty? What of the quote from the DOHS's webpage which appears earlier in this blog that reads, "Instill in young people a sense of belonging and faith in the future". What does this mean, this instilling?
In business, when a company is being threatened by a hostile takeover, they are allowed to take defensive measures to safeguard their company and shareholders. The defensive measures must meet the standard test set forth in the Unocal case: 1. The company must believe there is a legitimate threat and 2. The defensive measures must be reasonable and proportional to the threat being imposed.
We set such strict guidelines and rules for companies so that we can protect shareholders and give them the best possible deal. Why is the law black and white when it comes to protecting corporate rights, but so gray when it comes to human rights?
This test seems to be a very simple concept and easily applicable when reviewing a nation’s defensive measures. Even if there is no independent board reviewing a country’s decision to attack, each country can use their own standard to make an objective decision as to whether this particular defensive measure was proportional and reasonable to the threat being imposed. The only additional factor I would include is whether this attack of self defense are beneficial to the particular country’s citizens as well as your particular country. Nation’s do not conduct affairs in a vacuum and their actions have an effect on the entire world stage. For example it may promote terrorism worldwide or harm your economies.
If America were to use this standard, the question would be posed as such: Did Israel believe there was a legitimate threat from Hamas? If they did, are 4 days of airstrikes on a strip a little larger than D.C. a reasonable and proportional defensive measure to the threat imposed? Finally, will these airstrikes benefit Israeli, Palestinian, and American citizens?
I don’t know the answer. Every part of my being says No to every part of that question, but I am not a world leader and do not have the necessary information to make that kind of decision. But here are some factors that need to be considered:
1. Negotiations with Hamas prior to air strikes2. The effect on Palestinian citizens: food, medical supplies3. The effect on Israeli citizens: potential of additional attacks4. America: potential of additional attacks, ostracizing citizens by not keeping a balanced act in the territory5. Economic factors: possible boycotts, money invested into airstrikes, foreign investment used in airstrikes
The list goes on and on, but the point is the same. Let’s keep an objective eye on Israel and then make a decision whether we support its defensive measures. This has nothing to do with taking sides. We won’t be in Ahmedinejad’s corner if we decide these attacks are not reasonable or proportional. We would be using an objective test and taking the reasonable actions to either condone or reject the defensive measures.
Now the only problem I forsee with this law is that banks may end up dictating home prices. That's a big maybe.. I think the reason they require 20% or 10% down is just in case you pay to much for a home. So if you put 20% down and the home is worth 20% less well, the bank wouldn't take that loss. That would be on you. But if it goes beyond the 20%, then the law would state the bank would be required to write down the principle of the loan to the home value minus the 20%. This is only fair that the bank would do this. After all you've already lost everything you put down. You took that much risk. The bank should take the rest.
If anyone has any thoughts or ideas for or against proposed law, please add it to this blog.
In case you have some questions about how the Treasury Department is spending the $700 billion of taxpayer dollars that Congress authorized, you're not alone.
The Congressional Oversight Panel (COP) is tasked with answering just that question.
Established by the same law that made the $700 billion fund available, COP is chaired by Harvard Law School Professor Elizabeth Warren - a bankruptcy expert who has written extensively about the credit crisis for the blog Credit Slips.
Over at COP's homepage, COP.Senate.gov, she recorded a short video to tell you a little bit about the panel and the work they'll be doing.
In their first monthly report, the panel lays out 10 questions about the use of the economic stabilization funds, including "Is the strategy working?" and "Is the public receiving a fair deal?"
To answer those questions, COP is going to be holding hearings with officials from the Treasury Department, the Federal Reserve, and elsewhere to make sure that your money is being put to good use. But they're asking for your help and your involvement.
Watch the video, read the first monthly COP report, and share your story of how the economic crisis has affected you at COP.Senate.gov.
The Pickens Plan: For those who would like to become an active participant in a solution for our nations energy needs I urge you to join with T.Boone Pickens in his quest for a cleaner planet through alternative energy.
Also see Green Wave Energy: Green Wave was founded by Mark Holmes and was formulated for viable alternative energy solutions. Green Wave Energy is promoting state-of-the-art energy-saving products and services throughout the country.
Green Wave Energy understands alternative energy technology will become “main stream” when
Call 949.645.1701 for information on how Green Wave Energy can help you save the planet.
Alternative EnergySource: David Apperson
url: http://veterans.barackobama.com/page/community/tag/alternative-energy
Senators Feinstein and Bennett Urge DC Government To Reverse Emergency Alcohol Law
WASHINGTON, DC / Senator Dianne Feinstein, Chairman of the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies (JCCIC), and Senator Bob Bennett, Member of the JCCIC and Ranking Member of the U.S. Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, today urged the Mayor and City Council of Washington, DC to reverse the emergency legislation passed last week to allow bars and restaurants to sell alcohol until 5 am during the week of the inauguration.
“We have reached out to Mayor Fenty and Council Chairman Vincent Gray because of our grave concerns about the unintended consequences of this legislation,” said Senator Feinstein.
“What is clearly meant as a boon to local businesses may instead create tremendous problems for already overwhelmed law enforcement agencies.”
“Security needs to be the number one priority during the Inaugural ceremonies and extending the sale of alcohol until 5 am in DC will only divert law enforcement resources away from their primary focus on security measures and crowd safety,” said Senator Bennett.
Text of the JCCIC Letter
Dear Mayor Fenty and Council Chairman Gray: We are writing today to urge that City Council and the Mayor reverse emergency legislation approved by the Council last week that permits nightclubs, bars and restaurants to sell alcoholic beverages until 5 a.m. for four nights during the Inauguration of Barack Obama as our 44th President. With projections as high as 4 million people planning to visit the city during this time period, we are deeply concerned that the plan approved by the City Council could seriously strain law enforcement resources that need to be focused on the large crowds and security requirements of the Inaugural and its impact on the City. There is great cause for celebration at this historic event. But we believe that the benefits of this emergency legislation, passed with little public notice, are far outweighed by its possible consequences. We understand the pressures you face from the different constituencies in your city. But we also know the importance of standing firm to ensure the safety of residents, workers and visitors who will be in Washington, D.C., participating in this historic event.” Sincerely, Robert F Bennett and Dianne Feinstein
Dear Mayor Fenty and Council Chairman Gray:
We are writing today to urge that City Council and the Mayor reverse emergency legislation approved by the Council last week that permits nightclubs, bars and restaurants to sell alcoholic beverages until 5 a.m. for four nights during the Inauguration of Barack Obama as our 44th President.
With projections as high as 4 million people planning to visit the city during this time period, we are deeply concerned that the plan approved by the City Council could seriously strain law enforcement resources that need to be focused on the large crowds and security requirements of the Inaugural and its impact on the City.
There is great cause for celebration at this historic event. But we believe that the benefits of this emergency legislation, passed with little public notice, are far outweighed by its possible consequences.
We understand the pressures you face from the different constituencies in your city. But we also know the importance of standing firm to ensure the safety of residents, workers and visitors who will be in Washington, D.C., participating in this historic event.”
Sincerely,
Robert F Bennett and Dianne Feinstein
UPDATE: I spoke with the Mayor's office this morning. They stated that there will be another meeting on this issue in the near future. I recommend those reading this post call the Mayor and cast your vote for security.
The number for Mayor Fenty is 202.727.5011 - Vincent Gray's number is 202.724.8032
Justices of the United States Supreme Court who witnessed an OBAMANATION of HOPE
