Home

Handbasket? What Handbasket?

Leave a comment

I read a sad little story today about a former Homeless Shelter Case Worker who is going through some hard times. Seems that after 99 weeks of Unemployment Bennies – she still cannot find a job even with 17 years experience. And she has to pay for COBRA to the tune of $650 per month. And she is having to dip into her 401K next month if something miraculous does not happen.

At first one would be compassionate and think “Oh. How sad and her Mommy is in the story as well!”. But on reflection and further perusal of the “iReport”, the compassion seems to bleed from my brain.

This particular case is indicative of the mindset of some American Citizens. On reading the article we see that she is paying $300 per month for storage for the furniture that cannot fit in her new apartment:

And then there’s the storage fee of $300 she pays for all her excess furniture from her old apartment.

Word of advice: Sell it. If it is excess, you don’t need it. More

Advertisements

Arizona legal defense fund

5 Comments

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer is taking a novel approach to defending the state’s controversial new immigration law: She’s set up a website to solicit donations for a legal defense fund.

The site, www.keepazsafe.com, asks supporters of the law to contribute to its defense. Brewer, a Republican, created a separate fund in May to pay for outside legal counsel for the law, which has already been challenged by opponents.

“It’s amazing to see just how many folks across the country are supportive,” Brewer said in a statement. “The pouring in of hundreds of unsolicited donations since the end of April, speaks volumes about how important securing our border is to citizens across America.”

The law, enacted in April, requires a police officer to determine a person’s immigration status if they are stopped, detained or arrested and there is “reasonable suspicion” they are in the country illegally. Opponents have argued that the law could lead to profiling.

One question the website doesn’t answer: Whether a donation to the defense fund can be written off for tax purposes. “The State of Arizona provides no opinion as to whether donations to the Border Security and Immigration Legal Defense fund are deductible for federal income tax purposes,” the site reads. “A donor may wish to consult a tax professional for advice.”

(Posted by John Fritze)

Not 1 More Acre! Colorado fights back against Army invasion

1 Comment

Not 1 More Acre!
PO Box 773
Trinidad, Colorado  810802news@not1moreacre.net

 
Our three separate and equal branches of government – legislative, executive and judicial —  absolutely oppose any aspect of expansion at Piñon Canyon.   
 
“If there is one basic element in our Constitution, it is civilian control of the
military.”         
                                                                                              President Harry Truman 

He wrote, “a belief that it is OK to condescend to civilians is breeding a ‘culture of contempt’ for those not in uniform. It has really become a pandemic in the Army.”
                                                                                              COL Andrew Bacevich (RET)

Fort Carson, critics fight over heavier Pinon use

The Pueblo Chieftain
Posted: Sunday, June 27, 2010

By PETER ROPER | proper@chieftain.com

   Fort Carson will be sending two battalions of the 4th Infantry Division to the Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site in August for several weeks of training – signaling an Army effort to increase its use of the 238,000-acre training ground, even as critics argue that effort defies a U.S. federal court ruling last year. More

The”Ruthie Report” with special guest “Ruthie”!

Leave a comment

 
7/1/10
Please join me this week for
THE RUTHIE REPORT
(Click here)

THE INTERNET MUST REMAIN FREE

3 Comments

 

By Chuck Baldwin
June 29, 2010
NewsWithViews.com

 “And as far as objectionable material being available to children is concerned, this is what parents are for! Good grief! It is bad enough that the federal government has turned into Big Brother; are we going to allow it to become Big Momma and Big Daddy as well?”____________

The Internet is abuzz with news that a US Senate committee has approved a bill that apparently gives the President authority to shut down the Internet. According to TechWorld.com, “A US Senate committee has approved a wide-ranging cybersecurity bill that some critics have suggested would give the US president the authority to shut down parts of the Internet during a cyberattack.”

The report continues by saying, “The bill, introduced earlier this month [by Senators Joe Lieberman, I-Connecticut, Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Thomas Carper, D-Delaware], would establish a White House Office for Cyberspace Policy and a National Center for Cybersecurity and Communications, which would work with private US companies to create cybersecurity requirements for the electric grid, telecommunications networks and other critical infrastructure.”

See the report here.

A PrisonPlanet.com report says this about the bill: “President Obama will be handed the power to shut down the Internet for at least four months without Congressional oversight if the Senate votes for the infamous Internet ‘kill switch’ bill, which was approved by a key Senate committee yesterday [June 24] and now moves to the floor. More

PROPERTY RIGHTS DEFINED:The substantial value of property

Leave a comment

“The substantial value of property lies in its use. If the right of use be denied, the value of the property is annihilated and ownership is rendered a barren right.””

_________________________________________

In a “Fifth Amendment” treatise by State Supreme Court Justice Richard B. Sanders (12/10/97), he writes:

“Property “is defined by (Washington) state law. Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 92 S. Ct. 2701, 2709, 33 L. Ed. 2d 548 (1972). Our state, and most other states, define property in an extremely broad sense.”

“Property in a thing consists not merely in its ownership and possession, but in the unrestricted right of use, enjoyment, and disposal. Anything which destroys any of the elements of property, to that extent, destroys the property itself. The substantial value of property lies in its use. If the right of use be denied, the value of the property is annihilated and ownership is rendered a barren right.”

Ackerman v. Port of Seattle, 55 Wn.2d 400, 409, 348 P.2d 664 (1960) (quoting from Spann v. City of Dallas, 111 Tex. 350, 355, 235 S.W. 513, 19 A.L.R. 1387 (1921)).

And further, Justice Sanders states: More

USDA – New laws for meat packers

Leave a comment

USDA

The proposed rule is available from the Grain Inspection, Packers & Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) as www by clicking on “Federal Register.”
 Source: usda.com

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack announced that the U.S. Department of Agriculture plans to begin rulemaking next week that very well could lead to “the most aggressive” remodeling of the Packers & Stockyards Act (PSA) since it was created in 1921.

The rule will be published on June 22 and will be directed toward making sure that the marketplace is fair and transparent and rewards contract growers and livestock producers for investment, labor and producing high-quality livestock and poultry, Vilsack said during a teleconference with trade reporters.
The rule, which is required by the 2008 Farm Bill and by the PSA itself, will provide a 60-day comment period.
Much of the rule addresses the consolidation and integration of production that Vilsack implicated has damaged the vibrancy of farming and rural communities.
Vilsack emphasized that the changes proposed in the rule are designed to protect producers and would prohibit packers from engaging in practices that USDA believes are anticompetitive if not collusive, such as favoring certain-sized producers and packer-to-packer buying.
In particular, the proposed rule will require that contracts be publicly available so producers entering into contracts can determine if they’re receiving terms that are consistent across substrates such as a region or an industry itself or fundamentally different from contracts offered other parties.
Vilsack said the issues that the rule addresses are not so much about demand and supply but for whom demand and supply “is working.” He said it’s about level playing fields so those who “work hard have a shot at success.”
He also emphasized that there are “a number of great companies” in the livestock packing and poultry industry “that do the right thing,” and the rule won’t really change how they conduct business. It’s the companies that don’t “play by the rules” that will be affected, he said.

Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: