Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for January, 2010

I can certainly see that there should be no scrutiny whatsoever of that exemplary program making us all safe, the TSA.  Afterall, I feel much better knowing that they have had an 8 year old Cub Scout on their terror watchlist pretty much from the time he was born.

Michael Winston Hicks’s mother initially sensed trouble when he was a baby and she could not get a seat for him on their flight to Florida at an airport kiosk; airline officials explained that his name “was on the list,” she recalled.

The first time he was patted down, at Newark Liberty International Airport, Mikey was 2. He cried.

After years of long delays and waits for supervisors at every airport ticket counter, this year’s vacation to the Bahamas badly shook up the family. Mikey was frisked on the way there, then more aggressively on the way home.

“Up your arms, down your arms, up your crotch — someone is patting your 8-year-old down like he’s a criminal,” Mrs. Hicks recounted. “A terrorist can blow his underwear up and they don’t catch him. But my 8-year-old can’t walk through security without being frisked.”

But the best part about this government “success” story?  They continue to lie about it.

The Transportation Security Administration, under scrutiny after last month’s bombing attempt, has on its Web site a “mythbuster” that tries to reassure the public.

Myth: The No-Fly list includes an 8-year-old boy.

Buster: No 8-year-old is on a T.S.A. watch list.

“Meet Mikey Hicks,” said Najlah Feanny Hicks, introducing her 8-year-old son, a New Jersey Cub Scout and frequent traveler who has seldom boarded a plane without a hassle because he shares the name of a suspicious person. “It’s not a myth.”

I don’t know.  I still don’t feel safer with the Keystone Kops on the case, even if they are majoring in Kwality with a capital “K”.  Maybe they should add some Brownie Scouts and a few ladies of the Red Hat Society to their list of those singled out for special scrutiny.  Can’t ever be too careful, you know.

Read Full Post »

The latest Harry Reid debacle has me pondering a few things, and some of them have been nagging at me for a while.   

Harry just can’t seem to keep his feet out of his mouth, and sooner or later, this needs to become a problem for the Democrats.  You see, the leaders of the party in the House and Senate are elected by their fellow representatives and senators.  Among their duties are speaking for the party, being its face, and representing its values to the public.  And nowhere in recent years have the pitfalls of being a public face shown more than when the topic of race is involved.    

Not too many years ago, a Republican Senate Leader, Trent Lott, toasted Senator Strom Thurmond at a birthday party “I want to say this about my state: When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We’re proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn’t have had all these problems over all these years, either.”    

When this statement became public, it was immediately taken as an endorsement of the segregation that Senator Thurmond fought so hard to preserve against federal encroachment in southern states.  In other words, Lott was a racist!  At least, that was the conclusion of so many Democrats, who admonish others for jumping to conclusions when they feel they “are taken out of context.”  Yet this simplistic conclusion was soon enshrined as the only possible conclusion.  Not being omniscient, I don’t know what is in Lott’s heart, or that if he meant the comment as a racist conclusion.  However, I do know that the Dixiecrat Party, which Thurmond represented in his bid for the Presidency was firm in its support for state’s rights.  You liberals reading this might have heard of the concept.  The idea that some functions are specifically set aside for the federal government, and those not delegated to it or prohibited by the states are reserved to the states, or the people.  I know I have read about that extensively somewhere.  Give me a minute, I’m sure it will come to me.  Yet, once condemned by his Democratic counterparts in the Senate, the sin was deemed unpardonable, and atonement had to be made.  Lott gave in to pressure to resign from his leadership position, and then later from the Senate.   

Compare this to the latest instance of Harry’s mouth being a problem.   

In 2008 he said he thought that Barack Obama could win the presidency because he was “light-skinned” and did not use a “Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.”   

Let that sink in for a moment.  Trent Lott made a favorable remark in favor of the candidacy of a man whose agenda included segregation, as a component of states making their own decisions about matters, and it was immediately interpreted as an unforgivable manifestation of a racist mindset, but Harry Reid makes an overtly racist analysis of a specific person, the man who is now the President, but yet with apologies made to the right people, his party wants to consider the matter closed and move on.  There seems to be no serious consideration on the part of the Democratic Party about how this continued sanction of this man and his “leadership” reflects upon them.  Poor Harry has inserted his foot in his mouth so often that he has to brush his teeth with Tinactin, but no matter how inappropriate, whiney, or racist the remark, the Dems still want him as a standard bearer.  When the evil Booooosh was still in office, they might have better luck with spinning this and not having the real scrutiny turned where is should be directed, but in the wake of the Tea Party movement and under the gaze of an already enraged public, to simply act as if this foolish statement, one of a long line of foolish and revealing statements is forgiven because he immediately apologized to the President (which is correct) and black leaders (which is questionable) is tone-deaf at best, and politically dangerous at worst.  Pretending that this is not indicative of a larger problem with Harry Reid, and in the wake of continuing Democratic support, a much larger problem with the party itself, is as revealing as it is wrong.   

None of this comes as a surprise to many conservatives.  The Democratic double-standard has been a feature and not a bug of partisan politics for at least forty years now.  The part that is galling is that in the age of America’s First “Post-Racial” President, our noses keep getting rubbed in it by the very same people who have declared it to be true.  From Eric Holder’s scold that we are a nation of cowards who refuse to have an honest conversation about race, or the President himself who in the same breath recognizes that he did not have all the facts regarding an encounter between a black professor of his and the Cambridge Police, but concludes nonetheless that the Police acted stupidly.    

Memo to the President who supposedly came to heal the holes in our souls and his Attorney General seeking an honest discussion about race:  Looking to the actions and statements of those in your own party would be an excellent start.  When someone is your leader, and they can’t seem to stop themselves from committing gaffe after gaffe, and tops it off with undeniably racist statements, it reflects badly on you, too.  Especially when you keep wagging your crooked fingers at us about what you perceive to be racist behavior by us.


   
My final thoughts on this are probably more provocative, but again, as long as I have been admonished about not being willing to have an honest conversation about race, you’re going to get one from me.  Who are these “black leaders” that people not of color keep having to make amends to when they have been declared of some sort of racial transgression?   Who elected them?  Do we all get to choose?  And if not, how is that equality?  How did Harry know who to call?  Do they publish a directory?  I realize that this may sound somewhat ridiculous, and I might be making too much light of what should be serious questions, but I think it is long past time to have an honest conversation about race on this particular subject.  Who are these individuals to accept an apology for racist remarks about one person?  And if it were about more than one person, the question remains the same.  I don’t remember taking part in any decision to elect white leaders to accept apologies from members of other ethnic and racial groups who make racist remarks about white people.  Oh yeah, that never happens anyway.  The apologies, I mean.  And maybe that’s how it should be.    

There certainly is enough trouble with people we elect continually trying to take more and more power from us that is not theirs to take without us voluntarily giving up even more of it to select people so they can accept (and with the passage of time, begin to demand) apologies from members of other races and ethnicities for things that are clearly racist and those that we choose to take as racist, because this is where such people draw their power.  And of course once, empowered, these people will do whatever it takes to retain this power.  The sad but inevitable result is that an honest conversation about race becomes impossible, because power is dependent upon finding something to be offended about.  At some point, it simply becomes impossible to have any discussion about race, because in an environment where more people consider what they say, and re-examine their beliefs, there will be less to criticize, which means that the criticism of the remaining, more neutral remarks increases, until any mention of race at all will be racist.  And the party of identity politics, the Democratic Party, knows this.  Eric Holder, who is many things, but is not stupid, knows this.  And yet we still hear it, but only when it applies to the rest of us.  The last I looked, the Dems were the majority in the House and the Senate, and held the White House.  Maybe its time for them to stop talking and start leading.  By example.

Read Full Post »

I have been hearing a lot of rumblings about President Obama signing an Executive Order amending Executive Order 12425, and that as a result, we would now have a foreign agency allowed to act on U.S. soil without regard to the Constitution, and because I was familiar with a few of the sources saying it, I took it at face value, probably because with the transnationalists he has taken into his government, I didn’t find it too hard to believe. 

I shouldn’t have.  I violated one of the better Rules for Life™ that the Gipper left us with:  Trust, but verify. 

For those of you with a short attention span, conclusion first, and show the work second:

To put this in perspective for those of you who don’t read legislatese, the Gipper gave INTERPOL the recognition necessary to enjoy the privileges, exemptions and immunities granted to designated public international organizations under this act except those allowed by Section 2(c)[making the property of such organizations immune from search without consent], the parts of 2(d) and Section 3 relating to customs and import duties, and Sections 4[amending the Internal Revenue Code to allow for favorable tax treatment for the income producing holdings of approved international organizations within this country, and allowing them to exclude gross wages from the income attributable to them], 5[exempting the approved organizations from payment of the social security tax for their employees], and 6[exempting approved organizations from all property taxes.]  President Clinton allowed them to avoid the customs and duties taxes, and President Obama simply opened up the rest of the privileges to INTERPOL. 

That’s it.  No dramatic moment.  No international police busting down our doors and dragging citizens off without due process or Constitutional protections.  No killing American citizens indiscriminately only to face stern looks and an order PNG’ing you from the country.  At least not as a result of this Executive Order. 

Consider this my mea culpa for going along with it before I read it myself. 

 

As with all things, analysis of law needs to start at the beginning.  Executive Order 12425 reads: 

Executive Order 12425 of June 16, 1983 

International Criminal Police Organizations
By virtue of the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and statutes of the United States, including Section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (59 Stat. 669, 22 U.S.C. 288), it is hereby ordered that the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL), in which the United States participates pursuant to 22 U.S.C. 263a, is hereby designated as a public international organization entitled to enjoy the privileges, exemptions and immunities conferred by the International Organizations Immunities Act; except those provided by Section 2(c), the portions of Section 2(d) and Section 3 relating to customs duties and federal internal-revenue importation taxes, Section 4, Section 5, and Section 6 of that Act. This designation is not intended to abridge in any respect the privileges, exemptions or immunities which such organization may have acquired or may acquire by international agreement or by Congressional action. 

Signature of Ronald Reagan
Ronald Reagan 
The White House,
June 16, 1983.
This Order was amended in 1995, by President Clinton, with Executive Order 12971:
 

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to extend the appropriate privileges, exemptions, and immunities upon the International Criminal Police Organization (‘‘INTERPOL’’) it is hereby ordered that Executive Order No. 12425 be amended by deleting, in the first sentence, the words ‘‘the portions of Section 2(d) and’’ and the words ‘‘relating to customs duties and federal internal-revenue importation taxes’’.  

Signature of William J. Clinton
William J. Clinton 
The White House,
September 15, 1995.
 
The third amendment, signed by President Obama, in Executive Order 13524:
 

Executive Order 13524 of December 16, 2009 

Amending Executive Order 12425 Designating Interpol as a Public International Organization Entitled to Enjoy Certain Privileges, Exemptions, and Immunities
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (22 U.S.C. 288), and in order to extend the appropriate privileges, exemptions, and immunities to the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL), it is hereby ordered that Executive Order 12425 of June 16, 1983, as amended, is further amended by deleting from the first sentence the words ‘‘except those provided by Section 2(c), Section 3, Section 4, Section 5, and Section 6 of that Act’’ and the semicolon that immediately precedes them. 

Signature of Barack Obama
Barack Obama 
The White House,
December 16, 2009.
 
So what does this mean?  It means that in 1983, Ronaldus Maximus used an executive order to declare that INTERPOL was now a designated public international organization, which would entitle it to the the privileges, exemptions and immunities conferred by the International Organizations Immunities Act, except for those specifically withheld by the Executive Order.  Your next questions should be “What’s the International Organizations Immunities Act?”  I’m glad you asked.  It is Public Law 79-291, enacted by the 79th Congress in December of 1945, and unlike a lot of Congress’ work, is actually fairly short.
 
79TH UNITED STATES CONGRESS
1ST SESSIONAn Act

To extend certain privileges, exemptions, and immunities to international organizations and to the officers and employees thereof, and for other purposes.


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

 TITLE I

 Section 1.

For the purposes of this title, the term ‘‘international organization’’ means a public international organization in which the United States participates pursuant to any treaty or under the authority of any Act of Congress authorizing such participation or making an appropriation for such participation, and which shall have been designated by the President through appropriate Executive order as being entitled to enjoy the privileges, exemptions, and immunities herein provided. The President shall be authorized, in the light of the functions performed by any such international organization, by appropriate Executive order to withhold or withdraw from any such organization or its officers or employees any of the privileges, exemptions, and immunities provided for in this title (including the amendments made by this title) or to condition or limit the enjoyment by any such organization or its officers or employees of any such privilege, exemption, or immunity. The President shall be authorized, if in his judgment such action should be justified by reason of the abuse by an international organization or its officers and employees of the privileges, exemptions, and immunities herein provided or for any other reason, at any time to revoke the designation of any international organization under this section, whereupon the international organization in question shall cease to be classed as an international organization for the purposes of this title.

 Sec. 2.

International organizations shall enjoy the status, immunities, exemptions, and privileges set forth in this section, as follows:
(a) International organizations shall, to the extent consistent with the instrument creating them, possess the capacity—

(i) to contract;
(ii) to acquire and dispose of real and personal property;
(iii) to institute legal proceedings.
(b) International organizations, their property and their assets, wherever located, and by whomsoever held, shall enjoy the same immunity from suit and every form of judicial process as is enjoyed by foreign governments, except to the extent that such organizations may expressly waive their immunity for the purpose of any proceedings or by the terms of any contract.
(c) Property and assets of international organizations, wherever located and by whomsoever held, shall be immune from search, unless such immunity be expressly waived, and from confiscation. The archives of international organizations shall be inviolable.
(d) Insofar as concerns customs duties and internal-revenue taxes imposed upon or by reason of importation, and the procedures in connection therewith; the registration of foreign agents; and the treatment of official communications, the privileges, exemptions, and immunities to which international organizations shall be entitled shall be those accorded under similar circumstances to foreign governments.

Sec. 3.

Pursuant to regulations prescribed by the Commissioner of Customs with the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury, the baggage and effects of alien officers and employees of international organizations, or of aliens designated by foreign governments to serve as their representatives in or to such organizations, or of the families, suites, and servants of such officers, employees, or representatives shall be admitted (when imported in connection with the arrival of the owner) free of customs duties and free of internal-revenue taxes imposed upon or by reason of importation.

 Sec. 4.

The Internal Revenue Code is hereby amended as follows:
(a)  Effective with respect to taxable years beginning after December 31, 1943, section 116 (c), relating to the exclusion from gross income of income of foreign governments, is amended to read as follows:

  

“(C) INCOME OF FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS AND OF INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS.—The income of foreign governments or international organizations received from investments in the United States in stocks, bonds, or other domestic securities, owned by such foreign governments or by international organizations, or from interest on deposits in banks in the United States of moneys belonging to such foreign governments or international organizations, or from any other source within the United States.´´

  

(b)  Effective with respect to taxable years beginning after December 31, 1943, section 116 (h) (1), relating to the exclusion from gross income of amounts paid employees of foreign governments, is amended to read as follows:

  

“(1) RULE FOR EXCLUSION.—Wages, fees, or salary of any employee of a foreign government or of an international organization or of the Commonwealth of the Philippines (including a consular or other officer, or a nondiplomatic representative), received as compensation for official services to such government, international organization, or such Commonwealth—
“(A) If such employee is not a citizen of the United States, or is a citizen of the Commonwealth of the Philippines (whether or not a citizen of the United States); and
“(B) If, in the case of an employee of a foreign government or of the Commonwealth of the Philippines, the services are of a character similar to those performed by employees of the Government of the United States in foreign countries or in the Commonwealth of the Philippines, as the case may be; and
“(C) If, in the case of an employee of a foreign government or the Commonwealth of the Philippines, the foreign government or the Commonwealth grants an equivalent exemption to employees of the Government of the United States performing similar services in such foreign country or such Commonwealth, as the case may be.´´
(c) Effective January 1, 1946, section 1426 (b), defining the term ‘‘employment’’ for the purposes of the Federal Insurance Contributions Act, is amended (1) by striking out the word ‘‘or’’ at the end of paragraph (14), (2) by striking out the period at the end of paragraph (15) and inserting in lieu thereof a semicolon and the word ‘‘or’’, and (3) by inserting at the end of the subsection the following new paragraph:

  

“(16) Service performed in the employ of an international organization.´´

  

(d) Effective January 1, 1946, section 1607 (c) defining the term ‘‘employment’’ for the purposes of the Federal Unemployment Tax Act, is amended (1) by striking out the word ‘‘or’’ at the end of paragraph (14), (2) by striking out the period at the end of paragraph (15) and inserting in lieu thereof a semicolon and the word ‘‘or’’, and (3) by inserting at the end of the subsection the following new paragraph:

  

“(16) Service performed in the employ of an international organization.´´

  

(e) Section 1621 (a) (5), relating to the definition of ‘‘wages’’ for the purpose of collection of income tax at the source, is amended by inserting after the words ‘‘foreign government’’ the words ‘‘or an international organization’’.
(f) Section 3466 (a), relating to exemption from communications taxes is amended by inserting immediately after the words ‘‘the District of Columbia’’ a comma and the words ‘‘or an international organization’’.
(g) Section 3469 (f) (1), relating to exemption from the tax on transportation of persons, is amended by inserting immediately after the words ‘‘the District of Columbia’’ a comma and the words ‘‘or an international organization’’.
(h) Section 3475 (b) (1), relating to exemption from the tax on transportation of property, is amended by inserting immediately after the words ‘‘the District of Columbia’’ a comma and the words ‘‘or an international organization’’.
(i) Section 3797 (a), relating to definitions, is amended by adding at the end thereof a new paragraph as follows:

  

“(18) INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION.—The term ‘international organization’ means a public international organization entitled to enjoy privileges, exemptions, and immunities as an international organization under the International Organizations Immunities Act.´´

Sec. 5.

(a) Effective January 1, 1946, section 209 (b) of the Social Security Act, defining the term ‘‘employment’’ for the purposes of title II of the Act, is amended (1) by striking out the word ‘‘or’’ at the end paragraph (14), (2) by striking out the period at the end of paragraph (15) and inserting in lieu thereof a semicolon and the word ‘‘or’’, and (3) by inserting at the end of the subsection the following new paragraph:

  

“(16) Service performed in the employ of an international organization entitled to enjoy privileges, exemptions, and immunities as an international organization under the International Organizations Immunities Act.´´

  

(b) No tax shall be collected under title VIII or IX of the Social Security Act or under the Federal Insurance Contributions Act or the Federal Unemployment Tax Act, with respect to services rendered prior to January 1, 1946, which are described in paragraph (16) of sections 1426 (b) and 1607 (c) of the Internal Revenue Code, as amended, and any such tax heretofore collected (including penalty and interest with respect thereto, if any) shall be refunded in accordance with the provisions of law applicable in the case of erroneous or illegal collection of the tax. No interest shall be allowed or paid on the amount of any such refund. No payment shall be made under title II of the Social Security Act with respect to services rendered prior to January 1, 1946, which are described in paragraph (16) of section 209 (b) of such Act, as amended.

 Sec. 6.

International organizations shall be exempt from all property taxes imposed by, or under the authority of, any Act of Congress, including such Acts as are applicable solely to the District of Columbia or the Territories.

 Sec. 7.

(a) Persons designated by foreign governments to serve as their representatives in or to international organizations and the officers and employees of such organizations, and members of the immediate families of such representatives, officers, and employees residing with them, other than nationals of the United States, shall, insofar as concerns laws regulating entry into and departure from the United States, alien registration and fingerprinting, and the registration of foreign agents, be entitled to the same privileges, exemptions, and immunities as are accorded under similar circumstances to officers and employees, respectively, of foreign governments, and members of their families.
(b) Representatives of foreign governments in or to international organizations and officers and employees of such organizations shall be immune from suit and legal process relating to acts performed by them in their official capacity and falling within their functions as such representatives, officers, or employees except insofar as such immunity may be waived by the foreign government or international organization concerned.
(c) Section 3 of the Immigration Act approved May 26, 1924, as amended (U.S.C., title 8, sec. 203), is hereby amended by striking out the period at the end thereof and inserting in lieu thereof a comma and the following:

  

“and (7) a representative of a foreign government in or to an international organization entitled to enjoy privileges, exemptions, and immunities as an international organization under the International Organizations Immunities Act, or an alien officer or employee of such an international organization, and the family, attendants, servants, and employees of such a representative, officer, or employee´´.

  

(d) Section 15 of the Immigration Act approved May 26, 1924, as amended (U.S.C., title 8, sec. 215), is hereby amended to read as follows:

  

Sec. 15. The admission to the United States of an alien excepted from the class of immigrants by clause (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), or (7) of section 3, or declared to be a nonquota immigrant by subdivision (e) of section 4, shall be for such time and under such conditions as may be by regulations prescribed (including, when deemed necessary for the classes mentioned in clause (2), (3), (4), or (6) of section 3 and subdivision (e) of section 4, the giving of bond with sufficient surety, in such sum and containing such conditions as may be by regulations prescribed) to insure that, at the expiration of such time or upon failure to maintain the status under which admitted, he will depart from the United States: Provided, That no alien who has been, or who may hereafter be, admitted into the United States under clause (1) or (7) of section 3, as an official of a foreign government, or as a member of the family of such official, or as a representative of a foreign government in or to an international organization or an officer or employee of an international organization, or as a member of the family of such representative, officer, or employee, shall be required to depart from the United States without the approval of the Secretary of State.´´

 Sec. 8.

(a) No person shall be entitled to the benefits of this title unless he (1) shall have been duly notified to and accepted by the Secretary of State as a representative, officer, or employee; or (2) shall have been designated by the Secretary of State, prior to formal notification and acceptance, as a prospective representative, officer, or employee; or (3) is a member of the family or suite, or servant, of one of the foregoing accepted or designated representatives, officers, or employees.
(b) Should the Secretary of State determine that the continued presence in the United States of any person entitled to the benefits of this title is not desirable, he shall so inform the foreign government or international organization concerned, as the case may be, and after such person shall have had a reasonable length of time, to be determined by the Secretary of State, to depart from the United States, he shall cease to be entitled to such benefits.
(c) No person shall, by reason of the provisions of this title, be considered as receiving diplomatic status or as receiving any of the privileges incident thereto other than such as are specifically set forth herein.

 Sec. 9.

The privileges, exemptions, and immunities of international organizations and of their officers and employees, and members of their families, suites, and servants, provided for in this title, shall be granted notwithstanding the fact that the similar privileges, exemptions, and immunities granted to a foreign government, its officers, or employees, may be conditioned upon the existence of reciprocity by that foreign government:
Provided, That nothing contained in this title shall be construed as precluding the Secretary of State from withdrawing the privileges, exemptions, and immunities herein provided from persons who are nationals of any foreign country on the ground that such country is failing to accord corresponding privileges, exemptions, and immunities to citizens of the United States.

 Sec. 10.

This title may be cited as the “International Organizations Immunities Act´´.

  

 TITLE II

 Sec. 201. Extension of Time for Claiming Credit or Refund With Respect to War Losses.

If a claim for credit or refund under the internal revenue laws relates to an overpayment on account of the deductibility by the taxpayer of a loss in respect of property considered destroyed or seized under section 127 (a) of the Internal Revenue Code (relating to war losses) for a taxable year beginning in 1941 or 1942, the three-year period of limitation prescribed in section 322 (b) (1) of the Internal Revenue Code shall in no event expire prior to December 31, 1946. In the case of such a claim filed on or before December 31, 1946, the amount of the credit or refund may exceed the portion of the tax paid within the period provided in section 322 (b) (2) or (3) of such code, whichever is applicable, to the extent of the amount of the overpayment attributable to the deductibility of the loss described in this section.

Sec. 202. Contributions to Pension Trusts.

(a) Deductions for the Taxable Year 1942 Under Prior Income Tax Acts.—
Section 23 (p) (2) of the Internal Revenue Code is amended by striking out the words ‘‘January 1, 1943’’ and inserting in lieu thereof ‘‘January 1, 1942’’, and by striking out the words “December 31, 1942’’ and inserting in lieu thereof ‘‘December 31, 1941’’.
(b) Effective Date.—
The amendment made by this section shall be applicable as if it had been made as a part of section 162 (b) of the Revenue Act of 1942.

 Sec. 203. Petition to the Tax Court of the United States.

(a) Time for Filing Petition.—
The second sentences of sections 272 (a) (1), 732 (a), 871 (a) (1), and 1012 (a) (1), respectively, of the Internal Revenue Code are amended by striking out the parenthetical expression appearing therein and inserting in lieu thereof the following:

  

“(not counting Saturday, Sunday, or a legal holiday in the District of Columbia as the ninetieth day)´´.

  

(b) Effective Date.—
The amendments made by this section shall take effect as of September 8, 1945.

 

Approved December 29, 1945

Read Full Post »

Hattip to the incomperable Jaybear for the Pic.

I was driving along, minding my own business this morning, when Glenn Beck played this quote from Democratic Senator Tom Harkin:

“What this bill does is we finally take that step. As our leader said earlier, we take that step from healthcare as a privilege to healthcare as an inalienable right of every single American citizen. And as I said before, this bill is not complete. I’ve used the analogy of a starter home in which we can add additions and enhancements as we go into the future but like every right that we’ve ever passed the American people, we revisit it later to enhance and build on those rights, and we will do that here surely.”

Now, I know that my friends like Rutherford, whose love for Obama and the talking heads at MessNBC knows no bounds see absolutely nothing wrong with this quote.

Glenn, of course, in his own style correctly makes light of all the salient points. I’d like to revisit them.

1.  A U.S. Senator is talking about government giving us rights.   It would be difficult to point out people who should better understand that rights don’t come from government, they can only be restricted by government, and yet his meaning is crystal clear.

2.  He recognizes that healthcare is not a right, but illustrates that it is a party priority to make it so.  Therein all serious legislative discussion would end…in a sane world.

3. He recognizes the “foot in the door” concept.  He talks about a “starter home”, and the promise of more “additions” and “enhancements” to come.  He also interchanges the concept of “rights” and “entitlements”, although I think most Democrats have a fundamental problem differentiating between the two.  Just to again clear that up, the former are granted by God, the latter are created by government, at the expense of its taxpayers.

4.  In glorifying the government’s beneficence toward the American people, he attempts to cloak it in the authority of the only sovereign recognized by the Founders.  I’m starting to think that they just can’t help themselves.  Few people excel in euphemisms like politicians, and any more, fewer people seem to be able to discern when they are being presented with an ersatz copy of anything being passed off as an original.  But what I find disturbing is the appearance that he believes it.  And the whole “our leader” thing is more than a little creepy.

I don’t know how much more of Congress’s good intentions we can take.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts