No One Likes To Pay More Taxes, Even Liberals
Jan 24, 2011 Political
For all the talk that we get from liberals about how it is patriotic to pay our “fair share” of taxes and how the wealthy need to step up and bear some more of the burden, there sure are enough of them who do what they can to avoid taxes. We already know that many liberals claim that they do not pay enough in taxes and that they believe they should be paying more. Bill Clinton has stated this several times but there is no indication that he ever sent a check to the Treasury to help retire the debt. Anyone can do it.
There was a group of liberal college professors (redundant alert) who decided that they were mad because the government extended the Bush tax cuts for everyone. They have started to give their money to charity and are encouraging the wealthy to donate so it can go to help the peeps. They seem to have discovered that the individual and private entities are better at charity than the government and, in a bit of irony, they also get a tax write off to avoid paying more of what they think the rich should be paying…
Now it looks like the city of New York is going after people who they think might be cheating on taxes. If a person lives in New York City for more than 183 days then that person must pay NYC taxes. Being in the city for any part of the day counts as a day. Many wealthy people who have business in the city and own a place to live there “claim” they are not in the city for 183 days thus avoiding the tax which is quite high. The taxing authority audits these folks to see and scours for parking violations and other evidence that the people were in the city just to make the folks pay their taxes. Of course, most of these people are in the city for 183 days or more but they lie to avoid the taxes.
Now those folks, which includes Alec Baldwin, will have to attest to the fact that they are not in the city more than 183 days and if they are caught in a lie they will be committing another crime. Yes, Alec Baldwin, the big time liberal tells New York that he is not in the city enough to pay the taxes. What with a place in the Hamptons and all…
Liberals love to talk about tax increases as long as those increases are put upon someone else and not them. Taxes are for the riff-raff and not the elite of the liberal establishment.
So typical of liberals, do as I say and not as I do.
Rush Limbaugh and Derek Jeter moved out of the city (Limbaugh out of the state) to keep from being harassed. Before people say Limbaugh was avoiding taxes, he was audited every year for more than a dozen and they never found he was in the city for more than the 183 days (he paid the proper amount of taxes). He spent most of his time in Florida so he just moved there completely. Seems like a lot of rich people are migrating to states where the taxes are lower (or there are no taxes at all).
Source:
New York Daily News
Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: alec baldwin, Clinton, liberals, new york city, rich, taxes
Retired Cop Shows Value Of Armed Citizens
Dec 30, 2010 Political
The state of Maryland is a liberal mess. The extremely liberal and heavily populated subdivisions of Baltimore City and those surrounding Washington DC dictate the politics of the entire state. Most of the subdivisions are conservative and vote Republican but the heavily populated few decide the elections.
The state has a Democrat for its governor and a big Democrat majority in the state legislature so nearly all legislation is liberal. When it comes to firearm possession, this is certainly the case.
The Second Amendment states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed but in Maryland the process certainly infringes upon the law abiding citizen. People must go through background checks to purchase firearms, no problem there. We need to ensure criminals are not buying weapons. Those applying to buy a regulated firearm must also show proof of a gun safety class approved by the state (this is waived for certain classes of people like veterans of the armed forces). While it is not impossible to purchase a firearm, it is nearly impossible to get a permit to carry one. The governor of the state claims we have a process, which we do, but it is extremely restrictive. Unless one is politically connected one must have a reason to carry a weapon and that reason has to be deemed good enough by the State Police.
If a person carries large sums of money (like making bank deposits) or carries other valuables (such as jewels) or has documented threats then the police will decide if a person may carry a firearm. One must have a good reason before they will even consider it and if the permit is granted it usually comes with restrictions such as “may only carry when making bank deposits.”
Anyone who is not politically connected who applies for a permit to carry and does not have a “valid” reason will be denied. As a proponent of the Second Amendment I believe that clearly defined right is a good enough reason to issue a carry permit to a law abiding citizen.
But Maryland is not too keen on people exercising their rights.
One other group of people who can get a permit to carry is retired police officers. Once they retire they can apply for a permit and it is usually granted. The process is a mere formality.
What makes a retired cop or politically connected person or those who carry valuables any more worthy of a permit than any other law abiding citizen?
In Pimlico, the place most of America knows because of the Preakness (and where my family grew up and I spent the first 10 years of my life) a retired police officer was at a carry-out establishment when a would be robber tried to hold the place up. The retired officer drew his weapon and fired striking the robber and ending his ability to continue his illegal act.
If that retired officer had not been there it is unlikely, given Maryland’s restrictive gun law, that any other patron would have been armed. The robber would have been successful and might have injured or killed someone in the process.
In fact, if Maryland had a less restrictive (and Constitutional) carry law it is unlikely that the robber would have attempted to rob the carry-out in the first place. People who commit crimes do not do so in places where people are armed or are likely to be armed. If, on the other hand, they know that people are not likely to be in possession of firearms they will be less inhibited in what laws they break.
The nanny state of Maryland, a bastion of liberal stupidity, places people in danger because criminals have firearms because they do not obey the law. Places with oppressive gun laws have an armed criminal population.
This is why there are so many shootings in Baltimore. Despite the gun control exercised by the state, criminals get and use guns. And since the liberals in the state keep putting them back on the street, they continue to commit violent crimes.
It is time for Maryland to become a “shall issue” state where law abiding citizens shall be issued a permit if requested.
Remember, an armed citizenry is a polite citizenry and a disarmed population is enslaved to government.
Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: gun laws, liberals, Maryland, retired cop, robber shot
AARP Employees To Pay More For Health Care
Nov 5, 2010 Political
AARP announced that its employees will pay higher premiums due to two things. The first is the rising cost of health care and the second is Obamacare. AARP endorsed Obamacare and now its employees will pay more so that AARP does not get hit with the Cadillac tax on insurance plans that provide more (can’t have someone getting more than another in the redistributive world) than allowed under the law.
So AARP employees, you can thank your liberal biased organization for your increase.
The thing that interests me is that AARP is raising the cost to employees to avoid the 40% tax on expensive plans. Why? AARP knew that Obamacare would result in higher costs and that taxes would be needed to pay for it and like all liberals that organization believes in tax increases. So why would AARP avoid paying taxes?
Seems to me that liberals love to talk about how they are happy to pay more in taxes but none of them send extra money to the Treasury and they are always looking for ways to avoid taxes.
Rangel, Geithner, Kerry, AARP, and who knows how many Obama appointees have worked not to pay taxes or have ignored them completely.
I keep getting stuff from AARP because they want me to join. I was going to send them a letter telling them I would never join and to stop mailing stuff to me but then I decided to let it keep coming. I would rather they keep wasting their money printing and mailing that stuff to me.
Besides, it helps the postal service…
Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: aarp, liars, liberals, obamacare, premium increase
Where Are The Defenders Of Women From The Left?
Oct 9, 2010 Political
The left champions itself as the defenders of women and their causes and NOW is as far left as it gets. These people on the left are ready to pounce on any allegation of wrongdoing toward women but only if the allegation is against a conservative.
Anita Hill made allegations against Clarence Thomas and the woman’s groups and the left were all over it. Bill Clinton had sex with a subordinate in his office and these people defended HIM.
Now we have Jerry Brown of California or a member of his staff calling Meg Whitman a whore. Brown made a call to discuss the support of a group and he got voice mail. He left a message and then he hung up the phone, or at least he thought he did. The phone did not hang up and the voice mail kept recording. Here is what was heard:
“Do we want to put an ad out? … That I have been warned if I crack down on pensions, I will be – that they’ll go to Whitman, and that’s where they’ll go because they know Whitman will give ‘em, will cut them a deal, but I won’t,” Brown said.
At that point, what appears to be a second voice interjects: “What about saying she’s a whore?”
“Well, I’m going to use that,” Brown responds. “It proves you’ve cut a secret deal to protect the pensions.” LA Times Blog
Where is NOW and the liberals who claim to be the defenders of women?
They are basically silent on this issue. Meg Whitman is a Republican and they really do not care. In fact, the left and NOW probably believe Brown or his staffer was correct in the assessment of Whitman.
You can bet if this were John McCain calling Hillary Clinton that name (had she won the nomination) the left and the NOW gals would be all over it.
This is why these groups cannot be taken seriously. They are a politically biased group that has no concern for women in general and only care about liberal issues.
This is no different than the NAACP which, as its name suggests, is for the advancement of colored people (why do they keep that name) but they are only concerned when liberal “colored people” have a problem.
These groups are a joke and do not uphold their stated purposes. They are partisan and will abandon their alleged mission in favor of political gain.
You might say they are the liberals’ whores…
Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: california, jerry brown, liberals, meg whitman, NOW, whore
Liberals Are Always Victims, Just Ask Obama’s Family
Sep 20, 2010 Political
Looks like Obama’s aunt Zeituni, who was in America illegally until Obama was elected, is now the victim in all this mess. Aunt Zeituni has had many excuses for why she was here illegally and they all boil down to, she broke the law. She should have been deported long ago and if she was not related to Barack Obama she would have been sent home. Coincidences are fairly rare so it is highly likely that he or someone in his administration had something to do with her being allowed to stay.
In any event, Zeituni says that if a person comes here as an immigrant we have an obligation to make that person a citizen. In true Obama victim style, Zeituni is convinced that she was the victim in all this and that this great nation had an obligation to make her a citizen.
No lady, we had no such obligation. Becoming an American citizen is a privilege not a right so don’t play that liberal “I have the right to…” twaddle because it will not fly.
You, woman, had an obligation to take your sorry butt home after your legal time here had expired. You had an obligation to report back to court and you had an obligation to leave once you were told to do so.
We have no obligation to you or any other person who comes here as our guest and breaks the law (or comes here as the result of breaking the law). The only obligation we have is to the Constitution and the rule of law and that obligation includes throwing you out of our country.
So shut your mouth and enjoy the special favor you have been given by your nephew. But don’t play the victim card because you are not a victim, you are a criminal.
The article says that Zeituni claims the system made her a victim because it took care of her even though she was illegal. I don’t think the system took advantage of her or made her a victim just because it took care of her. That does not make her a victim, it makes her the recipient of kindness. But she is right, we should have refused to care for her and instead shipped her back home.
Typical liberal POS.
Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]