Barry Sorento's Eligibility question:
I am NOT a birther.
To me, it is not a question of where ol Chairman Zero was born, but rather the question of "Is he a natural born citizen of the United States"?
This article bottom lines it for me:
Here are tasty snippets:
"“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States;” However, the XIV Amendment makes no mention of “natural born citizen” as it was written to address issues of “immigration” and “naturalization,”—which excludes any redress regarding “native” or “natural born” citizens of the Unites States. In short, “natural born” is the exact opposite of “naturalized.” They are two completely different subjects and as we know, “naturalized citizens” cannot hold the office of President, though they are indeed “citizens” with otherwise equal rights. As Barack Hussein Obama’s stated birth father, Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. was at no time in his life a citizen of the United States, but rather a British subject and native citizen of Kenya, it is not possible for Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. to be a “natural born citizen” of the United States. It is therefore not possible for Barack Hussein Obama Jr. to be a constitutionally qualified resident of the people’s White House. Does it matter? Does the “will of the people” trump the US Constitution via the outcome of an election which happened as a result of fraud, in which the candidate concealed the fact that he is not a “natural born citizen?”
More goodness
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Thursday, March 25, 2010
So, leaving a message on a congressman's vmail calling him a piece of shit is a threat now?
Um, again, where were you people the last 8 years???????????
And for the record:
I THINK EVERYONE THAT VOTED FOR 0bamaCare is a HUGE, SMELLY, PILE OF HUMAN DEBRIS!
Stick that in your pipe and smoke it!
Um, again, where were you people the last 8 years???????????
And for the record:
I THINK EVERYONE THAT VOTED FOR 0bamaCare is a HUGE, SMELLY, PILE OF HUMAN DEBRIS!
Stick that in your pipe and smoke it!
Swiped from
Tuesday, March 09, 2010
What in the world is this crap?
Culled out
Obama administration will accept no more public input for federal fishery strategy
By Robert Montgomery
ESPNOutdoors.com
The Obama administration will accept no more public input for a federal strategy that could prohibit U.S. citizens from fishing the nation's oceans, coastal areas, Great Lakes, and even inland waters.
This announcement comes at the time when the situation supposedly still is "fluid" and the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force still hasn't issued its final report on zoning uses of these waters.
That's a disappointment, but not really a surprise for fishing industry insiders who have negotiated for months with officials at the Council on Environmental Quality and bureaucrats on the task force. These angling advocates have come to suspect that public input into the process was a charade from the beginning.
"When the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) completed their successful campaign to convince the Ontario government to end one of the best scientifically managed big game hunts in North America (spring bear), the results of their agenda had severe economic impacts on small family businesses and the tourism economy of communities across northern and central Ontario," said Phil Morlock, director of environmental affairs for Shimano.
"Now we see NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) and the administration planning the future of recreational fishing access in America based on a similar agenda of these same groups and other Big Green anti-use organizations, through an Executive Order by the President. The current U.S. direction with fishing is a direct parallel to what happened in Canada with hunting: The negative economic impacts on hard working American families and small businesses are being ignored.
"In spite of what we hear daily in the press about the President's concern for jobs and the economy and contrary to what he stated in the June order creating this process, we have seen no evidence from NOAA or the task force that recreational fishing and related jobs are receiving any priority."
Consequently, unless anglers speak up and convince their Congressional representatives to stop this bureaucratic freight train, it appears that the task force will issue a final report for "marine spatial planning" by late March, with President Barack Obama then issuing an Executive Order to implement its recommendations — whatever they may be.
Led by NOAA's Jane Lubchenco, the task force has shown no overt dislike of recreational angling, but its indifference to the economic, social and biological value of the sport has been deafening.
Additionally, Lubchenco and others in the administration have close ties to environmental groups who would like nothing better than to ban recreational angling. And evidence suggests that these organizations have been the engine behind the task force since before Obama issued a memo creating it last June.
As ESPN previously reported, WWF, Greenpeace, Defenders of Wildlife, Pew Environment Group and others produced a document entitled "Transition Green" shortly after Obama was elected in 2008. What has happened since suggests that the task force has been in lockstep with that position paper.
Then in late summer, just after he created the task force, these groups produced "Recommendations for the Adoption and Implementation of an Oceans, Coasts, and Great Lakes National Policy." This document makes repeated references to "overfishing," but doesn't once reference recreational angling, its importance, and its benefits, both to participants and the resource.
Additionally, some of these same organizations have revealed their anti-fishing bias by playing fast and loose with "facts," in attempts to ban tackle containing lead in the United States and Canada.
That same tunnel vision, in which recreational angling and commercial fishing are indiscriminately lumped together as harmful to the resource, has persisted with the task force, despite protests by the angling industry.
As more evidence of collusion, the green groups began clamoring for an Executive Order to implement the task force's recommendations even before the public comment period ended in February. Fishing advocates had no idea that this was coming.
Perhaps not so coincidentally, the New York Times reported on Feb. 12 that "President Obama and his team are preparing an array of actions using his executive power to advance energy, environmental, fiscal and other domestic policy priorities."
Morlock fears that "what we're seeing coming at us is an attempted dismantling of the science-based fish and wildlife model that has served us so well. There's no basis in science for the agendas of these groups who are trying to push the public out of being able to fish and recreate.
"Conflicts (user) are overstated and problems are manufactured. It's all just an excuse to put us off the water."
In the wake of the task force's framework document, the Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation (CSF) and its partners in the U.S. Recreational Fishing & Boating Coalition against voiced their concerns to the administration.
"Some of the potential policy implications of this interim framework have the potential to be a real threat to recreational anglers who not only contribute billions of dollars to the economy and millions of dollars in tax revenues to support fisheries conservation, but who are also the backbone of the American fish and wildlife conservation ethic," said CSF President Jeff Crane.
Morlock, a member of the CSF board, added, "There are over one million jobs in America supported coast to coast by recreational fishing. The task force has not included any accountability requirements in their reports for evaluating or mitigating how the new policies they are drafting will impact the fishing industry or related economies.
"Given that the scope of this process appears to include a new set of policies for all coastal and inland waters of the United States, the omission of economic considerations is inexcusable."
This is not the only access issue threatening the public's right to fish, but it definitely is the most serious, according to Chris Horton, national conservation director for BASS.
"With what's being created, the same principles could apply inland as apply to the oceans," he said. "Under the guise of 'marine spatial planning' entire watersheds could be shut down, even 2,000 miles up a river drainage from the ocean.
"Every angler needs to be aware because if it's not happening in your backyard today or tomorrow, it will be eventually.
"We have one of the largest voting blocks in the country and we need to use it. We must not sit idly by."
Source
Thursday, February 18, 2010
from:
http://www.embeddedart.com
Supposedly from the guy who flew his plane into the IRS building in Austin, TX on 02/18/2010
If you’re reading this, you’re no doubt asking yourself, “Why did this have to happen?” The simple truth is that it is complicated and has been coming for a long time. The writing process, started many months ago, was intended to be therapy in the face of the looming realization that there isn’t enough therapy in the world that can fix what is really broken. Needless to say, this rant could fill volumes with example after example if I would let it. I find the process of writing it frustrating, tedious, and probably pointless… especially given my gross inability to gracefully articulate my thoughts in light of the storm raging in my head. Exactly what is therapeutic about that I’m not sure, but desperate times call for desperate measures.
We are all taught as children that without laws there would be no society, only anarchy. Sadly, starting at early ages we in this country have been brainwashed to believe that, in return for our dedication and service, our government stands for justice for all. We are further brainwashed to believe that there is freedom in this place, and that we should be ready to lay our lives down for the noble principals represented by its founding fathers. Remember? One of these was “no taxation without representation”. I have spent the total years of my adulthood unlearning that crap from only a few years of my childhood. These days anyone who really stands up for that principal is promptly labeled a “crackpot”, traitor and worse.
While very few working people would say they haven’t had their fair share of taxes (as can I), in my lifetime I can say with a great degree of certainty that there has never been a politician cast a vote on any matter with the likes of me or my interests in mind. Nor, for that matter, are they the least bit interested in me or anything I have to say.
Why is it that a handful of thugs and plunderers can commit unthinkable atrocities (and in the case of the GM executives, for scores of years) and when it’s time for their gravy train to crash under the weight of their gluttony and overwhelming stupidity, the force of the full federal government has no difficulty coming to their aid within days if not hours? Yet at the same time, the joke we call the American medical system, including the drug and insurance companies, are murdering tens of thousands of people a year and stealing from the corpses and victims they cripple, and this country’s leaders don’t see this as important as bailing out a few of their vile, rich cronies. Yet, the political “representatives” (thieves, liars, and self-serving scumbags is far more accurate) have endless time to sit around for year after year and debate the state of the “terrible health care problem”. It’s clear they see no crisis as long as the dead people don’t get in the way of their corporate profits rolling in.
And justice? You’ve got to be kidding!
How can any rational individual explain that white elephant conundrum in the middle of our tax system and, indeed, our entire legal system? Here we have a system that is, by far, too complicated for the brightest of the master scholars to understand. Yet, it mercilessly “holds accountable” its victims, claiming that they’re responsible for fully complying with laws not even the experts understand. The law “requires” a signature on the bottom of a tax filing; yet no one can say truthfully that they understand what they are signing; if that’s not “duress” than what is. If this is not the measure of a totalitarian regime, nothing is.
How did I get here?
My introduction to the real American nightmare starts back in the early ‘80s. Unfortunately after more than 16 years of school, somewhere along the line I picked up the absurd, pompous notion that I could read and understand plain English. Some friends introduced me to a group of people who were having ‘tax code’ readings and discussions. In particular, zeroed in on a section relating to the wonderful “exemptions” that make institutions like the vulgar, corrupt Catholic Church so incredibly wealthy. We carefully studied the law (with the help of some of the “best”, high-paid, experienced tax lawyers in the business), and then began to do exactly what the “big boys” were doing (except that we weren’t steeling from our congregation or lying to the government about our massive profits in the name of God). We took a great deal of care to make it all visible, following all of the rules, exactly the way the law said it was to be done.
The intent of this exercise and our efforts was to bring about a much-needed re-evaluation of the laws that allow the monsters of organized religion to make such a mockery of people who earn an honest living. However, this is where I learned that there are two “interpretations” for every law; one for the very rich, and one for the rest of us… Oh, and the monsters are the very ones making and enforcing the laws; the inquisition is still alive and well today in this country.
That little lesson in patriotism cost me $40,000+, 10 years of my life, and set my retirement plans back to 0. It made me realize for the first time that I live in a country with an ideology that is based on a total and complete lie. It also made me realize, not only how naive I had been, but also the incredible stupidity of the American public; that they buy, hook, line, and sinker, the crap about their “freedom”… and that they continue to do so with eyes closed in the face of overwhelming evidence and all that keeps happening in front of them.
Before even having to make a shaky recovery from the sting of the first lesson on what justice really means in this country (around 1984 after making my way through engineering school and still another five years of “paying my dues”), I felt I finally had to take a chance of launching my dream of becoming an independent engineer.
On the subjects of engineers and dreams of independence, I should digress somewhat to say that I’m sure that I inherited the fascination for creative problem solving from my father. I realized this at a very young age.
The significance of independence, however, came much later during my early years of college; at the age of 18 or 19 when I was living on my own as student in an apartment in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. My neighbor was an elderly retired woman (80+ seemed ancient to me at that age) who was the widowed wife of a retired steel worker. Her husband had worked all his life in the steel mills of central Pennsylvania with promises from big business and the union that, for his 30 years of service, he would have a pension and medical care to look forward to in his retirement. Instead he was one of the thousands who got nothing because the incompetent mill management and corrupt union (not to mention the government) raided their pension funds and stole their retirement. All she had was social security to live on.
In retrospect, the situation was laughable because here I was living on peanut butter and bread (or Ritz crackers when I could afford to splurge) for months at a time. When I got to know this poor figure and heard her story I felt worse for her plight than for my own (I, after all, I thought I had everything to in front of me). I was genuinely appalled at one point, as we exchanged stories and commiserated with each other over our situations, when she in her grandmotherly fashion tried to convince me that I would be “healthier” eating cat food (like her) rather than trying to get all my substance from peanut butter and bread. I couldn’t quite go there, but the impression was made. I decided that I didn’t trust big business to take care of me, and that I would take responsibility for my own future and myself.
Return to the early ‘80s, and here I was off to a terrifying start as a ‘wet-behind-the-ears’ contract software engineer... and two years later, thanks to the fine backroom, midnight effort by the sleazy executives of Arthur Andersen (the very same folks who later brought us Enron and other such calamities) and an equally sleazy New York Senator (Patrick Moynihan), we saw the passage of 1986 tax reform act with its section 1706.
For you who are unfamiliar, here is the core text of the IRS Section 1706, defining the treatment of workers (such as contract engineers) for tax purposes. Visit this link for a conference committee report (http://www.synergistech.com/1706.shtml#ConferenceCommitteeReport) regarding the intended interpretation of Section 1706 and the relevant parts of Section 530, as amended. For information on how these laws affect technical services workers and their clients, read our discussion here (http://www.synergistech.com/ic-taxlaw.shtml).
SEC. 1706. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN TECHNICAL PERSONNEL.
(a) IN GENERAL - Section 530 of the Revenue Act of 1978 is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new subsection:
(d) EXCEPTION. - This section shall not apply in the case of an individual who pursuant to an arrangement between the taxpayer and another person, provides services for such other person as an engineer, designer, drafter, computer programmer, systems analyst, or other similarly skilled worker engaged in a similar line of work.
(b) EFFECTIVE DATE. - The amendment made by this section shall apply to remuneration paid and services rendered after December 31, 1986.
Note:
· "another person" is the client in the traditional job-shop relationship.
· "taxpayer" is the recruiter, broker, agency, or job shop.
· "individual", "employee", or "worker" is you.
Admittedly, you need to read the treatment to understand what it is saying but it’s not very complicated. The bottom line is that they may as well have put my name right in the text of section (d). Moreover, they could only have been more blunt if they would have came out and directly declared me a criminal and non-citizen slave. Twenty years later, I still can’t believe my eyes.
During 1987, I spent close to $5000 of my ‘pocket change’, and at least 1000 hours of my time writing, printing, and mailing to any senator, congressman, governor, or slug that might listen; none did, and they universally treated me as if I was wasting their time. I spent countless hours on the L.A. freeways driving to meetings and any and all of the disorganized professional groups who were attempting to mount a campaign against this atrocity. This, only to discover that our efforts were being easily derailed by a few moles from the brokers who were just beginning to enjoy the windfall from the new declaration of their “freedom”. Oh, and don’t forget, for all of the time I was spending on this, I was loosing income that I couldn’t bill clients.
After months of struggling it had clearly gotten to be a futile exercise. The best we could get for all of our trouble is a pronouncement from an IRS mouthpiece that they weren’t going to enforce that provision (read harass engineers and scientists). This immediately proved to be a lie, and the mere existence of the regulation began to have its impact on my bottom line; this, of course, was the intended effect.
Again, rewind my retirement plans back to 0 and shift them into idle. If I had any sense, I clearly should have left abandoned engineering and never looked back.
Instead I got busy working 100-hour workweeks. Then came the L.A. depression of the early 1990s. Our leaders decided that they didn’t need the all of those extra Air Force bases they had in Southern California, so they were closed; just like that. The result was economic devastation in the region that rivaled the widely publicized Texas S&L fiasco. However, because the government caused it, no one gave a shit about all of the young families who lost their homes or street after street of boarded up houses abandoned to the wealthy loan companies who received government funds to “shore up” their windfall. Again, I lost my retirement.
Years later, after weathering a divorce and the constant struggle trying to build some momentum with my business, I find myself once again beginning to finally pick up some speed. Then came the .COM bust and the 911 nightmare. Our leaders decided that all aircraft were grounded for what seemed like an eternity; and long after that, ‘special’ facilities like San Francisco were on security alert for months. This made access to my customers prohibitively expensive. Ironically, after what they had done the Government came to the aid of the airlines with billions of our tax dollars … as usual they left me to rot and die while they bailed out their rich, incompetent cronies WITH MY MONEY! After these events, there went my business but not quite yet all of my retirement and savings.
By this time, I’m thinking that it might be good for a change. Bye to California, I’ll try Austin for a while. So I moved, only to find out that this is a place with a highly inflated sense of self-importance and where damn little real engineering work is done. I’ve never experienced such a hard time finding work. The rates are 1/3 of what I was earning before the crash, because pay rates here are fixed by the three or four large companies in the area who are in collusion to drive down prices and wages… and this happens because the justice department is all on the take and doesn’t give a fuck about serving anyone or anything but themselves and their rich buddies.
To survive, I was forced to cannibalize my savings and retirement, the last of which was a small IRA. This came in a year with mammoth expenses and not a single dollar of income. I filed no return that year thinking that because I didn’t have any income there was no need. The sleazy government decided that they disagreed. But they didn’t notify me in time for me to launch a legal objection so when I attempted to get a protest filed with the court I was told I was no longer entitled to due process because the time to file ran out. Bend over for another $10,000 helping of justice.
So now we come to the present. After my experience with the CPA world, following the business crash I swore that I’d never enter another accountant’s office again. But here I am with a new marriage and a boatload of undocumented income, not to mention an expensive new business asset, a piano, which I had no idea how to handle. After considerable thought I decided that it would be irresponsible NOT to get professional help; a very big mistake.
When we received the forms back I was very optimistic that they were in order. I had taken all of the years information to Bill Ross, and he came back with results very similar to what I was expecting. Except that he had neglected to include the contents of Sheryl’s unreported income; $12,700 worth of it. To make matters worse, Ross knew all along this was missing and I didn’t have a clue until he pointed it out in the middle of the audit. By that time it had become brutally evident that he was representing himself and not me.
This left me stuck in the middle of this disaster trying to defend transactions that have no relationship to anything tax-related (at least the tax-related transactions were poorly documented). Things I never knew anything about and things my wife had no clue would ever matter to anyone. The end result is… well, just look around.
I remember reading about the stock market crash before the “great” depression and how there were wealthy bankers and businessmen jumping out of windows when they realized they screwed up and lost everything. Isn’t it ironic how far we’ve come in 60 years in this country that they now know how to fix that little economic problem; they just steal from the middle class (who doesn’t have any say in it, elections are a joke) to cover their asses and it’s “business-as-usual”. Now when the wealthy fuck up, the poor get to die for the mistakes… isn’t that a clever, tidy solution.
As government agencies go, the FAA is often justifiably referred to as a tombstone agency, though they are hardly alone. The recent presidential puppet GW Bush and his cronies in their eight years certainly reinforced for all of us that this criticism rings equally true for all of the government. Nothing changes unless there is a body count (unless it is in the interest of the wealthy sows at the government trough). In a government full of hypocrites from top to bottom, life is as cheap as their lies and their self-serving laws.
I know I’m hardly the first one to decide I have had all I can stand. It has always been a myth that people have stopped dying for their freedom in this country, and it isn’t limited to the blacks, and poor immigrants. I know there have been countless before me and there are sure to be as many after. But I also know that by not adding my body to the count, I insure nothing will change. I choose to not keep looking over my shoulder at “big brother” while he strips my carcass, I choose not to ignore what is going on all around me, I choose not to pretend that business as usual won’t continue; I have just had enough.
I can only hope that the numbers quickly get too big to be white washed and ignored that the American zombies wake up and revolt; it will take nothing less. I would only hope that by striking a nerve that stimulates the inevitable double standard, knee-jerk government reaction that results in more stupid draconian restrictions people wake up and begin to see the pompous political thugs and their mindless minions for what they are. Sadly, though I spent my entire life trying to believe it wasn’t so, but violence not only is the answer, it is the only answer. The cruel joke is that the really big chunks of shit at the top have known this all along and have been laughing, at and using this awareness against, fools like me all along.
I saw it written once that the definition of insanity is repeating the same process over and over and expecting the outcome to suddenly be different. I am finally ready to stop this insanity. Well, Mr. Big Brother IRS man, let’s try something different; take my pound of flesh and sleep well.
The communist creed: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.
The capitalist creed: From each according to his gullibility, to each according to his greed.
Joe Stack (1956-2010)
02/18/2010
http://www.embeddedart.com
Supposedly from the guy who flew his plane into the IRS building in Austin, TX on 02/18/2010
If you’re reading this, you’re no doubt asking yourself, “Why did this have to happen?” The simple truth is that it is complicated and has been coming for a long time. The writing process, started many months ago, was intended to be therapy in the face of the looming realization that there isn’t enough therapy in the world that can fix what is really broken. Needless to say, this rant could fill volumes with example after example if I would let it. I find the process of writing it frustrating, tedious, and probably pointless… especially given my gross inability to gracefully articulate my thoughts in light of the storm raging in my head. Exactly what is therapeutic about that I’m not sure, but desperate times call for desperate measures.
We are all taught as children that without laws there would be no society, only anarchy. Sadly, starting at early ages we in this country have been brainwashed to believe that, in return for our dedication and service, our government stands for justice for all. We are further brainwashed to believe that there is freedom in this place, and that we should be ready to lay our lives down for the noble principals represented by its founding fathers. Remember? One of these was “no taxation without representation”. I have spent the total years of my adulthood unlearning that crap from only a few years of my childhood. These days anyone who really stands up for that principal is promptly labeled a “crackpot”, traitor and worse.
While very few working people would say they haven’t had their fair share of taxes (as can I), in my lifetime I can say with a great degree of certainty that there has never been a politician cast a vote on any matter with the likes of me or my interests in mind. Nor, for that matter, are they the least bit interested in me or anything I have to say.
Why is it that a handful of thugs and plunderers can commit unthinkable atrocities (and in the case of the GM executives, for scores of years) and when it’s time for their gravy train to crash under the weight of their gluttony and overwhelming stupidity, the force of the full federal government has no difficulty coming to their aid within days if not hours? Yet at the same time, the joke we call the American medical system, including the drug and insurance companies, are murdering tens of thousands of people a year and stealing from the corpses and victims they cripple, and this country’s leaders don’t see this as important as bailing out a few of their vile, rich cronies. Yet, the political “representatives” (thieves, liars, and self-serving scumbags is far more accurate) have endless time to sit around for year after year and debate the state of the “terrible health care problem”. It’s clear they see no crisis as long as the dead people don’t get in the way of their corporate profits rolling in.
And justice? You’ve got to be kidding!
How can any rational individual explain that white elephant conundrum in the middle of our tax system and, indeed, our entire legal system? Here we have a system that is, by far, too complicated for the brightest of the master scholars to understand. Yet, it mercilessly “holds accountable” its victims, claiming that they’re responsible for fully complying with laws not even the experts understand. The law “requires” a signature on the bottom of a tax filing; yet no one can say truthfully that they understand what they are signing; if that’s not “duress” than what is. If this is not the measure of a totalitarian regime, nothing is.
How did I get here?
My introduction to the real American nightmare starts back in the early ‘80s. Unfortunately after more than 16 years of school, somewhere along the line I picked up the absurd, pompous notion that I could read and understand plain English. Some friends introduced me to a group of people who were having ‘tax code’ readings and discussions. In particular, zeroed in on a section relating to the wonderful “exemptions” that make institutions like the vulgar, corrupt Catholic Church so incredibly wealthy. We carefully studied the law (with the help of some of the “best”, high-paid, experienced tax lawyers in the business), and then began to do exactly what the “big boys” were doing (except that we weren’t steeling from our congregation or lying to the government about our massive profits in the name of God). We took a great deal of care to make it all visible, following all of the rules, exactly the way the law said it was to be done.
The intent of this exercise and our efforts was to bring about a much-needed re-evaluation of the laws that allow the monsters of organized religion to make such a mockery of people who earn an honest living. However, this is where I learned that there are two “interpretations” for every law; one for the very rich, and one for the rest of us… Oh, and the monsters are the very ones making and enforcing the laws; the inquisition is still alive and well today in this country.
That little lesson in patriotism cost me $40,000+, 10 years of my life, and set my retirement plans back to 0. It made me realize for the first time that I live in a country with an ideology that is based on a total and complete lie. It also made me realize, not only how naive I had been, but also the incredible stupidity of the American public; that they buy, hook, line, and sinker, the crap about their “freedom”… and that they continue to do so with eyes closed in the face of overwhelming evidence and all that keeps happening in front of them.
Before even having to make a shaky recovery from the sting of the first lesson on what justice really means in this country (around 1984 after making my way through engineering school and still another five years of “paying my dues”), I felt I finally had to take a chance of launching my dream of becoming an independent engineer.
On the subjects of engineers and dreams of independence, I should digress somewhat to say that I’m sure that I inherited the fascination for creative problem solving from my father. I realized this at a very young age.
The significance of independence, however, came much later during my early years of college; at the age of 18 or 19 when I was living on my own as student in an apartment in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. My neighbor was an elderly retired woman (80+ seemed ancient to me at that age) who was the widowed wife of a retired steel worker. Her husband had worked all his life in the steel mills of central Pennsylvania with promises from big business and the union that, for his 30 years of service, he would have a pension and medical care to look forward to in his retirement. Instead he was one of the thousands who got nothing because the incompetent mill management and corrupt union (not to mention the government) raided their pension funds and stole their retirement. All she had was social security to live on.
In retrospect, the situation was laughable because here I was living on peanut butter and bread (or Ritz crackers when I could afford to splurge) for months at a time. When I got to know this poor figure and heard her story I felt worse for her plight than for my own (I, after all, I thought I had everything to in front of me). I was genuinely appalled at one point, as we exchanged stories and commiserated with each other over our situations, when she in her grandmotherly fashion tried to convince me that I would be “healthier” eating cat food (like her) rather than trying to get all my substance from peanut butter and bread. I couldn’t quite go there, but the impression was made. I decided that I didn’t trust big business to take care of me, and that I would take responsibility for my own future and myself.
Return to the early ‘80s, and here I was off to a terrifying start as a ‘wet-behind-the-ears’ contract software engineer... and two years later, thanks to the fine backroom, midnight effort by the sleazy executives of Arthur Andersen (the very same folks who later brought us Enron and other such calamities) and an equally sleazy New York Senator (Patrick Moynihan), we saw the passage of 1986 tax reform act with its section 1706.
For you who are unfamiliar, here is the core text of the IRS Section 1706, defining the treatment of workers (such as contract engineers) for tax purposes. Visit this link for a conference committee report (http://www.synergistech.com/1706.shtml#ConferenceCommitteeReport) regarding the intended interpretation of Section 1706 and the relevant parts of Section 530, as amended. For information on how these laws affect technical services workers and their clients, read our discussion here (http://www.synergistech.com/ic-taxlaw.shtml).
SEC. 1706. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN TECHNICAL PERSONNEL.
(a) IN GENERAL - Section 530 of the Revenue Act of 1978 is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new subsection:
(d) EXCEPTION. - This section shall not apply in the case of an individual who pursuant to an arrangement between the taxpayer and another person, provides services for such other person as an engineer, designer, drafter, computer programmer, systems analyst, or other similarly skilled worker engaged in a similar line of work.
(b) EFFECTIVE DATE. - The amendment made by this section shall apply to remuneration paid and services rendered after December 31, 1986.
Note:
· "another person" is the client in the traditional job-shop relationship.
· "taxpayer" is the recruiter, broker, agency, or job shop.
· "individual", "employee", or "worker" is you.
Admittedly, you need to read the treatment to understand what it is saying but it’s not very complicated. The bottom line is that they may as well have put my name right in the text of section (d). Moreover, they could only have been more blunt if they would have came out and directly declared me a criminal and non-citizen slave. Twenty years later, I still can’t believe my eyes.
During 1987, I spent close to $5000 of my ‘pocket change’, and at least 1000 hours of my time writing, printing, and mailing to any senator, congressman, governor, or slug that might listen; none did, and they universally treated me as if I was wasting their time. I spent countless hours on the L.A. freeways driving to meetings and any and all of the disorganized professional groups who were attempting to mount a campaign against this atrocity. This, only to discover that our efforts were being easily derailed by a few moles from the brokers who were just beginning to enjoy the windfall from the new declaration of their “freedom”. Oh, and don’t forget, for all of the time I was spending on this, I was loosing income that I couldn’t bill clients.
After months of struggling it had clearly gotten to be a futile exercise. The best we could get for all of our trouble is a pronouncement from an IRS mouthpiece that they weren’t going to enforce that provision (read harass engineers and scientists). This immediately proved to be a lie, and the mere existence of the regulation began to have its impact on my bottom line; this, of course, was the intended effect.
Again, rewind my retirement plans back to 0 and shift them into idle. If I had any sense, I clearly should have left abandoned engineering and never looked back.
Instead I got busy working 100-hour workweeks. Then came the L.A. depression of the early 1990s. Our leaders decided that they didn’t need the all of those extra Air Force bases they had in Southern California, so they were closed; just like that. The result was economic devastation in the region that rivaled the widely publicized Texas S&L fiasco. However, because the government caused it, no one gave a shit about all of the young families who lost their homes or street after street of boarded up houses abandoned to the wealthy loan companies who received government funds to “shore up” their windfall. Again, I lost my retirement.
Years later, after weathering a divorce and the constant struggle trying to build some momentum with my business, I find myself once again beginning to finally pick up some speed. Then came the .COM bust and the 911 nightmare. Our leaders decided that all aircraft were grounded for what seemed like an eternity; and long after that, ‘special’ facilities like San Francisco were on security alert for months. This made access to my customers prohibitively expensive. Ironically, after what they had done the Government came to the aid of the airlines with billions of our tax dollars … as usual they left me to rot and die while they bailed out their rich, incompetent cronies WITH MY MONEY! After these events, there went my business but not quite yet all of my retirement and savings.
By this time, I’m thinking that it might be good for a change. Bye to California, I’ll try Austin for a while. So I moved, only to find out that this is a place with a highly inflated sense of self-importance and where damn little real engineering work is done. I’ve never experienced such a hard time finding work. The rates are 1/3 of what I was earning before the crash, because pay rates here are fixed by the three or four large companies in the area who are in collusion to drive down prices and wages… and this happens because the justice department is all on the take and doesn’t give a fuck about serving anyone or anything but themselves and their rich buddies.
To survive, I was forced to cannibalize my savings and retirement, the last of which was a small IRA. This came in a year with mammoth expenses and not a single dollar of income. I filed no return that year thinking that because I didn’t have any income there was no need. The sleazy government decided that they disagreed. But they didn’t notify me in time for me to launch a legal objection so when I attempted to get a protest filed with the court I was told I was no longer entitled to due process because the time to file ran out. Bend over for another $10,000 helping of justice.
So now we come to the present. After my experience with the CPA world, following the business crash I swore that I’d never enter another accountant’s office again. But here I am with a new marriage and a boatload of undocumented income, not to mention an expensive new business asset, a piano, which I had no idea how to handle. After considerable thought I decided that it would be irresponsible NOT to get professional help; a very big mistake.
When we received the forms back I was very optimistic that they were in order. I had taken all of the years information to Bill Ross, and he came back with results very similar to what I was expecting. Except that he had neglected to include the contents of Sheryl’s unreported income; $12,700 worth of it. To make matters worse, Ross knew all along this was missing and I didn’t have a clue until he pointed it out in the middle of the audit. By that time it had become brutally evident that he was representing himself and not me.
This left me stuck in the middle of this disaster trying to defend transactions that have no relationship to anything tax-related (at least the tax-related transactions were poorly documented). Things I never knew anything about and things my wife had no clue would ever matter to anyone. The end result is… well, just look around.
I remember reading about the stock market crash before the “great” depression and how there were wealthy bankers and businessmen jumping out of windows when they realized they screwed up and lost everything. Isn’t it ironic how far we’ve come in 60 years in this country that they now know how to fix that little economic problem; they just steal from the middle class (who doesn’t have any say in it, elections are a joke) to cover their asses and it’s “business-as-usual”. Now when the wealthy fuck up, the poor get to die for the mistakes… isn’t that a clever, tidy solution.
As government agencies go, the FAA is often justifiably referred to as a tombstone agency, though they are hardly alone. The recent presidential puppet GW Bush and his cronies in their eight years certainly reinforced for all of us that this criticism rings equally true for all of the government. Nothing changes unless there is a body count (unless it is in the interest of the wealthy sows at the government trough). In a government full of hypocrites from top to bottom, life is as cheap as their lies and their self-serving laws.
I know I’m hardly the first one to decide I have had all I can stand. It has always been a myth that people have stopped dying for their freedom in this country, and it isn’t limited to the blacks, and poor immigrants. I know there have been countless before me and there are sure to be as many after. But I also know that by not adding my body to the count, I insure nothing will change. I choose to not keep looking over my shoulder at “big brother” while he strips my carcass, I choose not to ignore what is going on all around me, I choose not to pretend that business as usual won’t continue; I have just had enough.
I can only hope that the numbers quickly get too big to be white washed and ignored that the American zombies wake up and revolt; it will take nothing less. I would only hope that by striking a nerve that stimulates the inevitable double standard, knee-jerk government reaction that results in more stupid draconian restrictions people wake up and begin to see the pompous political thugs and their mindless minions for what they are. Sadly, though I spent my entire life trying to believe it wasn’t so, but violence not only is the answer, it is the only answer. The cruel joke is that the really big chunks of shit at the top have known this all along and have been laughing, at and using this awareness against, fools like me all along.
I saw it written once that the definition of insanity is repeating the same process over and over and expecting the outcome to suddenly be different. I am finally ready to stop this insanity. Well, Mr. Big Brother IRS man, let’s try something different; take my pound of flesh and sleep well.
The communist creed: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.
The capitalist creed: From each according to his gullibility, to each according to his greed.
Joe Stack (1956-2010)
02/18/2010
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
By Joy Tiz Sunday, January 24, 2010
“The beauty of being a narcissist is that even when disaster stares you in the face, you feel neither doubt nor remorse.”-Carl Vogel, “A Field Guide to Narcissism”
Telegraph reporter Stephanie Gutmann describes her reaction to Barack Obama’s appearance in Berlin: “After it was over I picked up the phone and called a friend back home. ‘It’s worse than we thought,’ I told him. ‘The guy’s actually crazy.’”
Guttman was talking about candidate Obama’s agenda as he presented it that day, in which he promised to take on the terrorists in Afghanistan, take on the drug dealers, rebuild Afghanistan, eliminate the building nuclear threat, secure all loose nukes, decrease arsenals from another era, form a new global partnership that will end terror networks, redistribute wealth, save the planet, withdraw all troops from Iraq, keep the oceans from rising, end famine, and reduce carbon output.
Incredibly, there are Obamanutz among us who honestly don’t realize that Barack Obama is a narcissist of the worst kind. Most people erroneously presume that narcissism is something akin to egomania or an unusually high sense of self-esteem. The truth is the reverse. Narcissists suffer from self-loathing, not too much self-love.
It takes a bit of narcissism to wake up in the morning and think, “Hey, I really ought to be leader of the free world.” Coming to such a conclusion in the fourth grade is a bit bombastic. Having some narcissistic traits does not a narcissist make. However, according to the Encyclopedia of Mental Disorders (DSM IV-TR), grandiosity is the most important single trait in narcissism.
For all of the narcissist’s grandiosity, he is driven by a relentless need to pursue and maintain a source of narcissistic supply. A narcissist is at his most menacing when he perceives a threat to his perpetual supply of admiration and affirmation. No drama Obama showed early on the truculence typical of narcissists when they sense a threat to supply. The same president who remains steadfast in his willingness to meet with Iran’s barbarian in chief, Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, bleats about imagined desecration by Fox News.
“The normal person is likely to welcome a moderate amount of attention - verbal and non-verbal - in the form of affirmation, approval, or admiration. Too much attention, though, is perceived as onerous and is avoided. Destructive and negative criticism is avoided altogether.”
“The narcissist, in contrast, is the mental equivalent of an alcoholic. He is insatiable. He directs his whole behaviour, in fact his life, to obtain these pleasurable titbits [sic] of attention. He embeds them in a coherent, completely biased, picture of himself. He uses them to regulates his labile sense of self-worth and self-esteem.“
To maintain a constant flow of narcissistic supply, he must project a confabulated version of himself as omnipotent, intelligent, or in some way superior.
“The narcissist then proceeds to harvest reactions to this projected image from family members, friends, co-workers, neighbours, business partners and from colleagues. If these - the adulation, admiration, attention, fear, respect, applause, affirmation - are not forthcoming, the narcissist demands them, or extorts them. Money, compliments, a favourable critique, an appearance in the media, a sexual conquest are all converted into the same currency in the narcissist’s mind.”
For the narcissist, nothing matters more than maintaining his supply. From Obama’s perspective, being chided by a cable news commentator really is a more pressing exigency than the possibility of Iran amassing nuclear weapons.
After twelve months of unabated blundering, the president just suffered an especially mortifying series of narcissistic injuries. The election of Scott Brown last week was a body blow to Obama. Time and again, his specialness has failed to translate into success for his fellow democrat candidates. Add to the Brown victory the recent Supreme Court decision to uphold free speech; a ruling that Obama says he is going to “fight”? Did this man actually go to law school at all?
“The narcissist is constantly on the lookout for slights. He is hypervigilant. He perceives every disagreement as criticism and every critical remark as complete and humiliating rejection - nothing short of a threat. Gradually, his mind turns into a chaotic battlefield of paranoia and ideas of reference.”
“Most narcissists react defensively. They become conspicuously indignant, aggressive, and cold. They detach emotionally for fear of yet another (narcissistic) injury. They devalue the person who made the disparaging remark, the critical comment, the unflattering observation, the innocuous joke at the narcissist’s expense.”
This time, the American people are the ones who must be devalued.
The pundit community is all atwitter. Will he or won’t he? Will Obama do a Clintonesque tack to the center following such harsh wallops to his ego and agenda?
No. He won’t. Not even if we assume Obama can find the center at all; nothing in his history suggests he is anything other than a radical socialist. There is virtually nothing to indicate that he knows or cares very much about the country he is supposed to lead.
Just a day after the dazzling and emblematic Brown victory in Massachusetts, Obama demonstrated how tenuous his hold on objective reality is. Rather than acknowledge the clarity of the message sent by the people in their rejection of his agenda, most particularly the monstrous health crimes legislation; a visibly choleric Obama postulated the preposterous and offensive theory that Americans simply don’t understand the genius of his plans. Hack sawing his friable connections to external reality, Obama came to the astonishing conclusion that what he must do now is make more speeches.
When Obama gives the State of the Union next week, anticipate the platitudinous gibberish we’ve come to loathe. Whoever loads the teleprompter twaddle will make sure it’s at least coherent. His demeanor and body language will be far more instructive than what he says. Obama is in the full grip of narcissistic rage. He is also prone to emotional leakage, which should get worse with as his ire escalates.
David Axelrod seems to be trying to pre-spin the image of a very damaged president by forewarning that we will be seeing a “feisty” president.Thus, they turned to David Plouffe, his 2008 campaign manager who will increase his role in the Obama administration. Recall that after the Brown victory, Obama went back on the campaign trail in Ohio, looking and sounding dreadful. He promised twenty times to “fight” for America.
Plouffe has the onerous task of protecting democrats from Obama’s toxic touch. Plouffe has announced his winning strategy for democrats in November: “No bed-wetting.”
Obama is not fighting for America, his grand jeremiad is with the American people. He wasted no time after his Massachusetts loss to declare war against the banks. The current leader of the free world is not in touch with reality. The toady press keeps accepting his fabrications and denials. And mental health professionals have shown a remarkable lack of curiosity about the mental health of the President of the United States.
It’s not in the nation’s best interest to put a narcissist in the White House. Bill Clinton’s debauchery demonstrated his willingness to put his need for narcissistic supply ahead of the well-being of the country he was hired to serve. Clinton’s narcissism was manifestly less toxic than Barack Obama’s.
Clinton was able to take in new information and change direction because his narcissism is less pathological than Obama’s. It is important to understand that we all have narcissistic traits; the quality of self sufficiency, for example, can be highly adaptive. We all need a degree of self-reliance. It’s more useful to consider narcissism and its elements as a continuum rather than a yes-or-no matter.
Blissfully unburdened by any core principles or values; it was easy for Bill Clinton to shift to the center if that was what it took to be adored. For all of his many flaws, at least Clinton was a known quantity with roots firmly planted in America.
For all of the narcissist’s grandiosity, he is driven by a relentless need to pursue and maintain a source of narcissistic supply. Clinton was driven by polls; he made major policy decisions based on poll data. His sexual acting out is also typical of narcissists.
Of course, Obama could surprise us all with a well crafted speech signaling that he has heard the message loud and clear that America does not want what he wants. Or, more importantly, what George Soros wants.
I wouldn’t bet the farm on it.
“The beauty of being a narcissist is that even when disaster stares you in the face, you feel neither doubt nor remorse.”-Carl Vogel, “A Field Guide to Narcissism”
Telegraph reporter Stephanie Gutmann describes her reaction to Barack Obama’s appearance in Berlin: “After it was over I picked up the phone and called a friend back home. ‘It’s worse than we thought,’ I told him. ‘The guy’s actually crazy.’”
Guttman was talking about candidate Obama’s agenda as he presented it that day, in which he promised to take on the terrorists in Afghanistan, take on the drug dealers, rebuild Afghanistan, eliminate the building nuclear threat, secure all loose nukes, decrease arsenals from another era, form a new global partnership that will end terror networks, redistribute wealth, save the planet, withdraw all troops from Iraq, keep the oceans from rising, end famine, and reduce carbon output.
Incredibly, there are Obamanutz among us who honestly don’t realize that Barack Obama is a narcissist of the worst kind. Most people erroneously presume that narcissism is something akin to egomania or an unusually high sense of self-esteem. The truth is the reverse. Narcissists suffer from self-loathing, not too much self-love.
It takes a bit of narcissism to wake up in the morning and think, “Hey, I really ought to be leader of the free world.” Coming to such a conclusion in the fourth grade is a bit bombastic. Having some narcissistic traits does not a narcissist make. However, according to the Encyclopedia of Mental Disorders (DSM IV-TR), grandiosity is the most important single trait in narcissism.
For all of the narcissist’s grandiosity, he is driven by a relentless need to pursue and maintain a source of narcissistic supply. A narcissist is at his most menacing when he perceives a threat to his perpetual supply of admiration and affirmation. No drama Obama showed early on the truculence typical of narcissists when they sense a threat to supply. The same president who remains steadfast in his willingness to meet with Iran’s barbarian in chief, Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, bleats about imagined desecration by Fox News.
“The normal person is likely to welcome a moderate amount of attention - verbal and non-verbal - in the form of affirmation, approval, or admiration. Too much attention, though, is perceived as onerous and is avoided. Destructive and negative criticism is avoided altogether.”
“The narcissist, in contrast, is the mental equivalent of an alcoholic. He is insatiable. He directs his whole behaviour, in fact his life, to obtain these pleasurable titbits [sic] of attention. He embeds them in a coherent, completely biased, picture of himself. He uses them to regulates his labile sense of self-worth and self-esteem.“
To maintain a constant flow of narcissistic supply, he must project a confabulated version of himself as omnipotent, intelligent, or in some way superior.
“The narcissist then proceeds to harvest reactions to this projected image from family members, friends, co-workers, neighbours, business partners and from colleagues. If these - the adulation, admiration, attention, fear, respect, applause, affirmation - are not forthcoming, the narcissist demands them, or extorts them. Money, compliments, a favourable critique, an appearance in the media, a sexual conquest are all converted into the same currency in the narcissist’s mind.”
For the narcissist, nothing matters more than maintaining his supply. From Obama’s perspective, being chided by a cable news commentator really is a more pressing exigency than the possibility of Iran amassing nuclear weapons.
After twelve months of unabated blundering, the president just suffered an especially mortifying series of narcissistic injuries. The election of Scott Brown last week was a body blow to Obama. Time and again, his specialness has failed to translate into success for his fellow democrat candidates. Add to the Brown victory the recent Supreme Court decision to uphold free speech; a ruling that Obama says he is going to “fight”? Did this man actually go to law school at all?
“The narcissist is constantly on the lookout for slights. He is hypervigilant. He perceives every disagreement as criticism and every critical remark as complete and humiliating rejection - nothing short of a threat. Gradually, his mind turns into a chaotic battlefield of paranoia and ideas of reference.”
“Most narcissists react defensively. They become conspicuously indignant, aggressive, and cold. They detach emotionally for fear of yet another (narcissistic) injury. They devalue the person who made the disparaging remark, the critical comment, the unflattering observation, the innocuous joke at the narcissist’s expense.”
This time, the American people are the ones who must be devalued.
The pundit community is all atwitter. Will he or won’t he? Will Obama do a Clintonesque tack to the center following such harsh wallops to his ego and agenda?
No. He won’t. Not even if we assume Obama can find the center at all; nothing in his history suggests he is anything other than a radical socialist. There is virtually nothing to indicate that he knows or cares very much about the country he is supposed to lead.
Just a day after the dazzling and emblematic Brown victory in Massachusetts, Obama demonstrated how tenuous his hold on objective reality is. Rather than acknowledge the clarity of the message sent by the people in their rejection of his agenda, most particularly the monstrous health crimes legislation; a visibly choleric Obama postulated the preposterous and offensive theory that Americans simply don’t understand the genius of his plans. Hack sawing his friable connections to external reality, Obama came to the astonishing conclusion that what he must do now is make more speeches.
When Obama gives the State of the Union next week, anticipate the platitudinous gibberish we’ve come to loathe. Whoever loads the teleprompter twaddle will make sure it’s at least coherent. His demeanor and body language will be far more instructive than what he says. Obama is in the full grip of narcissistic rage. He is also prone to emotional leakage, which should get worse with as his ire escalates.
David Axelrod seems to be trying to pre-spin the image of a very damaged president by forewarning that we will be seeing a “feisty” president.Thus, they turned to David Plouffe, his 2008 campaign manager who will increase his role in the Obama administration. Recall that after the Brown victory, Obama went back on the campaign trail in Ohio, looking and sounding dreadful. He promised twenty times to “fight” for America.
Plouffe has the onerous task of protecting democrats from Obama’s toxic touch. Plouffe has announced his winning strategy for democrats in November: “No bed-wetting.”
Obama is not fighting for America, his grand jeremiad is with the American people. He wasted no time after his Massachusetts loss to declare war against the banks. The current leader of the free world is not in touch with reality. The toady press keeps accepting his fabrications and denials. And mental health professionals have shown a remarkable lack of curiosity about the mental health of the President of the United States.
It’s not in the nation’s best interest to put a narcissist in the White House. Bill Clinton’s debauchery demonstrated his willingness to put his need for narcissistic supply ahead of the well-being of the country he was hired to serve. Clinton’s narcissism was manifestly less toxic than Barack Obama’s.
Clinton was able to take in new information and change direction because his narcissism is less pathological than Obama’s. It is important to understand that we all have narcissistic traits; the quality of self sufficiency, for example, can be highly adaptive. We all need a degree of self-reliance. It’s more useful to consider narcissism and its elements as a continuum rather than a yes-or-no matter.
Blissfully unburdened by any core principles or values; it was easy for Bill Clinton to shift to the center if that was what it took to be adored. For all of his many flaws, at least Clinton was a known quantity with roots firmly planted in America.
For all of the narcissist’s grandiosity, he is driven by a relentless need to pursue and maintain a source of narcissistic supply. Clinton was driven by polls; he made major policy decisions based on poll data. His sexual acting out is also typical of narcissists.
Of course, Obama could surprise us all with a well crafted speech signaling that he has heard the message loud and clear that America does not want what he wants. Or, more importantly, what George Soros wants.
I wouldn’t bet the farm on it.
Friday, January 22, 2010
A couple of very inspiring things happened on the way to this column. First, a reminder. One year ago this week President Obama was sworn into office. Rather than recap what's been written during the last year within the confines of this column, I'll take the opportunity to plug the website. plattecountylandmark.com, click on “Straight From Stigall” and you can bone up on some of my thoughts. If you're one of those goofballs that still have the creepy stickers with “Dear Leader's” Warhol-esque picture on your bumper, I'll save you the time. You won't enjoy the reading.
Meanwhile, as this paper goes to print early in the week, the special election in Massachusetts to fill Ted Kennedy's seat is underway. The early stories and polling, it can be said at the very least, have Democrats nervous about the prospects of losing this election to a Republican. Should it happen the “liberal lion” of the Senate godfather of “health care reform” the last living member of Camelot will be put to political rest forever.
No matter a Republican victory or loss, that it's even close is all you need to know about a year of President Obama. Massachusetts created the single biggest political story of a generation.
As the press and the Democrats tie themselves in knots at the prospect of an entirely blue state turning half red. As the country's electorate rages at tea parties, town halls, and protest rallies outside congressional offices to stop government overreach. I couldn't help but smile this week and think, “This is just as our Founding Fathers envisioned our system working.”
This feeling was only reaffirmed when I received a copy of an email this week by a listener to our radio show. This individual works for Commerce Bank, and he wanted me to read and even share the contents of the email with our audience (and Landmark readers, too). The email was an internal communication to all Commerce Bank employees from their CEO David Kemper.
What little I know of Mr. Kemper, I can tell you the email was unusual for its candor and direct message aimed at Washington. In a day and age of political correctness, and at the risk of offending Obama-loyal customers and employees, Mr. Kemper felt it was time to stand up and speak his mind on behalf of his company. The subject of the email addressed President Obama's new plan to levy a tax on financial institutions. Suffice it to say, Mr. Kemper felt this was the last straw. He offered some comments, and 6 points-of-fact he felt his employees needed to know. Some abbreviated highlights:
“I am writing to you to keep you informed concerning the current highly politicized debate in Washington concerning additional taxes and regulation on the banking industry. It is becoming increasingly obvious that the Obama Administration has chosen to vilify the banking industry as a politically expedient way of boosting their standing in light of a very difficult economy.…The Obama Administration, the media, and some members of Congress have been making some incorrect and very misleading comments concerning the cost of the financial crisis and governmental losses on the TARP program… saying that the industry "owes" further taxes to the governmenton moral grounds or to make up for losses the government will take on advances to other industries is a very dangerous precedent and further contributes to a populist anti-business feeling that could be very harmful in the long run.
The facts are:
1) Commerce Bancshares luckily did not take any TARP funds because we did not need it, did not want to be beholden to the government and did not want to pay a very expensive rate on the money.
2) $700 billion was appropriated for the fund of which $250 billion was advanced to the banking industry. Nearly 75% of that money advanced to the banks has already been paid back.
3) It is estimated by the US Treasury that the government will make a profit on their TARP advances to commercial banks of around $19 billion. This profit is not being mentioned by politicians who are implying the government will lose money on the bank portion of this program. This is patently incorrect.
4) The government will lose money (perhaps a lot of money) on its TARP advances to AIG, GMAC and the auto companies. The government made aconscious decision to subsidize the auto industry and AIG - that is their choice but has little to nothing to do with main stream commercial banks…
5) The banking industry will pay for the losses of failed banks through the industry's recapitalization of the FDIC fund. Last year we paid $28 million into the FDIC fund, an increase of $24 million over 2008: that $24 million comes directly out of our profits… This is very expensive but the industry (not the government) is paying for the failure of poorly run banks.
6) We welcome higher capital ratios and strong regulation because we do not like paying for the failure of weak banks. We all know we have a tough economy and high unemployment and are working closely with our customers through this challenging period. We also need to communicate that weakening the banking system through unfair taxation and excessive regulation is going to severely damage our industry and economic recovery."
Now that's leadership.
America is being awakened and engaged in their country en masse for the first time in generations. Voters who would traditionally vote party line, or with their union, or with that familiar family name on the ballot know this week's vote is about something much more. The traditional assumptions about blue states and red states are dead this week. Executives and CEOs are standing up, speaking out, and even pushing back when free markets and their very livelihoods come under attack from Washington.
It's truly inspiring to watch. It's just what our Constitution ordered.
(Be inspired by Chris Stigall each week only in The Landmark. And listen to him each morning on 710 KCMO. Email him at stigall@710kcmo.com)
Meanwhile, as this paper goes to print early in the week, the special election in Massachusetts to fill Ted Kennedy's seat is underway. The early stories and polling, it can be said at the very least, have Democrats nervous about the prospects of losing this election to a Republican. Should it happen the “liberal lion” of the Senate godfather of “health care reform” the last living member of Camelot will be put to political rest forever.
No matter a Republican victory or loss, that it's even close is all you need to know about a year of President Obama. Massachusetts created the single biggest political story of a generation.
As the press and the Democrats tie themselves in knots at the prospect of an entirely blue state turning half red. As the country's electorate rages at tea parties, town halls, and protest rallies outside congressional offices to stop government overreach. I couldn't help but smile this week and think, “This is just as our Founding Fathers envisioned our system working.”
This feeling was only reaffirmed when I received a copy of an email this week by a listener to our radio show. This individual works for Commerce Bank, and he wanted me to read and even share the contents of the email with our audience (and Landmark readers, too). The email was an internal communication to all Commerce Bank employees from their CEO David Kemper.
What little I know of Mr. Kemper, I can tell you the email was unusual for its candor and direct message aimed at Washington. In a day and age of political correctness, and at the risk of offending Obama-loyal customers and employees, Mr. Kemper felt it was time to stand up and speak his mind on behalf of his company. The subject of the email addressed President Obama's new plan to levy a tax on financial institutions. Suffice it to say, Mr. Kemper felt this was the last straw. He offered some comments, and 6 points-of-fact he felt his employees needed to know. Some abbreviated highlights:
“I am writing to you to keep you informed concerning the current highly politicized debate in Washington concerning additional taxes and regulation on the banking industry. It is becoming increasingly obvious that the Obama Administration has chosen to vilify the banking industry as a politically expedient way of boosting their standing in light of a very difficult economy.…The Obama Administration, the media, and some members of Congress have been making some incorrect and very misleading comments concerning the cost of the financial crisis and governmental losses on the TARP program… saying that the industry "owes" further taxes to the governmenton moral grounds or to make up for losses the government will take on advances to other industries is a very dangerous precedent and further contributes to a populist anti-business feeling that could be very harmful in the long run.
The facts are:
1) Commerce Bancshares luckily did not take any TARP funds because we did not need it, did not want to be beholden to the government and did not want to pay a very expensive rate on the money.
2) $700 billion was appropriated for the fund of which $250 billion was advanced to the banking industry. Nearly 75% of that money advanced to the banks has already been paid back.
3) It is estimated by the US Treasury that the government will make a profit on their TARP advances to commercial banks of around $19 billion. This profit is not being mentioned by politicians who are implying the government will lose money on the bank portion of this program. This is patently incorrect.
4) The government will lose money (perhaps a lot of money) on its TARP advances to AIG, GMAC and the auto companies. The government made aconscious decision to subsidize the auto industry and AIG - that is their choice but has little to nothing to do with main stream commercial banks…
5) The banking industry will pay for the losses of failed banks through the industry's recapitalization of the FDIC fund. Last year we paid $28 million into the FDIC fund, an increase of $24 million over 2008: that $24 million comes directly out of our profits… This is very expensive but the industry (not the government) is paying for the failure of poorly run banks.
6) We welcome higher capital ratios and strong regulation because we do not like paying for the failure of weak banks. We all know we have a tough economy and high unemployment and are working closely with our customers through this challenging period. We also need to communicate that weakening the banking system through unfair taxation and excessive regulation is going to severely damage our industry and economic recovery."
Now that's leadership.
America is being awakened and engaged in their country en masse for the first time in generations. Voters who would traditionally vote party line, or with their union, or with that familiar family name on the ballot know this week's vote is about something much more. The traditional assumptions about blue states and red states are dead this week. Executives and CEOs are standing up, speaking out, and even pushing back when free markets and their very livelihoods come under attack from Washington.
It's truly inspiring to watch. It's just what our Constitution ordered.
(Be inspired by Chris Stigall each week only in The Landmark. And listen to him each morning on 710 KCMO. Email him at stigall@710kcmo.com)
Thursday, January 21, 2010
ONE YEAR GONE: President George W. Bush Answered the Calling of Our Time
Adam Baldwin has always been one of my favorite actors. Loved him on Firefly!
ONE YEAR GONE: President George W. Bush Answered the Calling of Our Time
ONE YEAR GONE: President George W. Bush Answered the Calling of Our Time
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Preserved here to make sure it stays:
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/01/19/jeffrey-scott-shapiro-bush-obama-president-betrayed/
America Betrayed President Bush
It's almost hard to believe but Wednesday, January 20 marks exactly one year since President Bush left the White House.
During his last public ceremony as commander in chief, he was booed by thousands of Americans who simutaneously cheered for Barack Obama as he was sworn into office on the steps of the U.S. Capitol.
Except for a June 17 speech in Erie, Pennsylvania in which Bush defended his policies and criticized Obama’s, the former president has been remarkably silent about his successor. He has not fired back at Obama despite the new administration inappropriately blaming Bush for all of their failures.
One year after taking office however, Obama has done a total reversal on his isolationist, non-interventionist foreign policy, and is now pushing President Bush’s neo-conservative philosophy as a justification for starting a new war in Afghanistan. What the Democratic Party once criticized as an over-simplified good vs. evil argument has become the cornerstone of Obama’s reasoning.
“Evil does exist in the world,” Obama recently admitted. “A nonviolent movement could not have halted Hitler’s armies. Negotiations cannot convince al-Qaeda’s leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force is sometimes necessary is not a call to cynicism – it is recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of man.”
In the wake of this stunning adoption of the Bush foreign policy doctrine, there is little, if any dissent. The same people who crucified Bush for liberating Iraq are hardly criticizing Obama for using force to promote democracy in Afghanistan.
Recent Gallup polls find that 62 percent of Americans think Obama’s war in Afghanistan “is the right thing” whereas only 39 percent of Americans think Bush made the right decision by sending troops to Iraq.
Any American who thinks that Bush was misdirected when he sent troops to Iraq in 2003 can’t possibly deny that renewing war in Afghanistan in 2009 to hunt Al Qaeda, eight years after the Sept. 11 attacks is, at the least, equally fallible.
Still, Obama is receiving the kind of public support that an American president, any president, deserves during wartime. Many anti-war activists, journalists and elected officials have been remarkably quiet, affording the new commander in chief the opportunity to launch a successful war campaign.
Very few Americans showed the same faithfulness to President Bush, including members of his own party. Republicans who favored non-interventionism to nation building abandoned Bush, and Democratic senators like John Kerry, John Edwards and Hillary Clinton who voted for the war turned against it before the 2004 elections so they would have the ammunition they needed to criticize their incumbent opponent.
America quickly forgot about how President Bush charismatically lifted our spirits during some of the darkest moments of our nation’s history when the Twin Towers collapsed. After all, even Senator Kerry admitted Bush’s handling of the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks was “terrific,” during the 2004 presidential debates.
But after President Bush successfully secured America in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, he was rewarded with accusations of committing human rights violations and war crimes – an incredible irony since his policies were responsible for liberating tens of millions of people in Afghanistan and Iraq. Some Americans accused Bush of lying and starting a war under false pretenses simply because our troops never found actual weapons of mass destruction.
Despite what Michael Moore implied in his film "Fahrenheit 9/11," Congress did not base their 2002 authorization for the Iraq War solely on the premise that Saddam Hussein either had or was trying to acquire weapons of mass destruction. Their legislation reads very clearly that America’s purpose in sending troops back to Iraq was to enforce U.N. resolutions, some of which were violated in the 1990’s and probably should have been enforced by President Clinton. Whether actual weapons were found or not, the war in Iraq was legally and morally justifiable, and necessary.
In addition to enduring criticism for his war policies, millions of Americans demanded the new Obama administration prosecute Bush for his decision to indefinitely holding detainees charged with war crimes. When President Obama signed an executive order in May that reinforced that same Bush policy, the far left was mute.
Almost no one said a word. Apparently, its acceptable for Obama to indefinitely hold detainees, just not Bush.
As Obama continues to make decisions that mirror the Bush doctrine, it is becoming apparent that the former president was not ignorant or irrational in his foreign policy decisions despite the harsh criticism and disloyalty he endured. He was in fact, ahead of his time, a visionary who understood politics and warfare in the modern age of terrorism.
That is why Obama is now following his lead.
It should be obvious now, even to Obama’s most passionate supporters that shielding the free world requires more than mere words like “hope” and “change.” Bush’s detractors should be embarrassed having arrogantly thought they could do it better, and those Republicans who abandoned Bush when he needed them most should take a moment to reflect on their fortitude or lack thereof.
Americans who chastised President Bush for removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq should apologize and show him the same respect they are now showing President Obama as he neutralizes the Taliban in Afghanistan.
George W. Bush seemed to have an almost mystical understanding of what the American people needed when we needed it most. He reminded all of us of why we should be proud to be Americans at a time when there was a whisper that we brought the Sept. 11 attacks upon ourselves for promoting democracy abroad.
President Bush deserves our respect, not our betrayal.
Another awesome article:
I know it has been a while since I last posted.
First off, Yeah Brown!
But that is not what I want to blog about this morning.
On my way in to work today, I was listening to Chris Stegall.
He played a clip of John Freaking Kerry during the concession speech last night.
OMFG.
I SCREAMED at the radio.
He said, I am paraphrasing here:
Tax cuts are not targeted.
If you give a tax cut to an individual, or small business, then there is no guarantee they will invest the money. There is no guarantee that they will invest it in the United States, or at all. Government, yes Government, is the only one who can make sure the money is invested in programs that work......
HE DOES NOT GET IT. THEY STILL DO NOT GET IT!
It's called Liberty, Freedom Senator. I earned that money. It is MY money, not yours. If I want to spend it on a big mac, porn magazine, or set it on fire, guess what I SHOULD be able to. Because it is MINE. Not yours. That is what the US is all about. It's none of your damned business what I do with it.
When I find the exact quote, I will post it here.
First off, Yeah Brown!
But that is not what I want to blog about this morning.
On my way in to work today, I was listening to Chris Stegall.
He played a clip of John Freaking Kerry during the concession speech last night.
OMFG.
I SCREAMED at the radio.
He said, I am paraphrasing here:
Tax cuts are not targeted.
If you give a tax cut to an individual, or small business, then there is no guarantee they will invest the money. There is no guarantee that they will invest it in the United States, or at all. Government, yes Government, is the only one who can make sure the money is invested in programs that work......
HE DOES NOT GET IT. THEY STILL DO NOT GET IT!
It's called Liberty, Freedom Senator. I earned that money. It is MY money, not yours. If I want to spend it on a big mac, porn magazine, or set it on fire, guess what I SHOULD be able to. Because it is MINE. Not yours. That is what the US is all about. It's none of your damned business what I do with it.
When I find the exact quote, I will post it here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)