by | BLOG, LAW, NEWS, POLITICS
The government interference in the Hunter Biden tax case is simply astounding. Looking beyond the “sweetheart” (misdemeanor) deal that Hunter Biden received is something just as egregious; namely, the actions of the Justice Department in the entire ordeal. Here’s a sampling of their odious behavior:
1) Probable cause had been established by prosecutors to search a) Hunter Biden’s guest house in Delaware at President Biden’s home; and b) the Hunter Biden’s storage unit in Virginia, where it was likely important records had been kept. Instead, the Justice Department denied permission for the search warrants.
2) Whereas the Justice Department traditionally declines to investigate or indict serious matters within 60 days of an election, they did so for six months.
3) They warned Hunter’s attorneys about an forthcoming search warrant that was intended to gather evidence
4) They declined the ability to have key witnesses interviewed on important issues involving potentially Hunter and his father.
Indeed, it seems rational to conclude if the Justice Department had made different choices than the ones above, those might have led to unearthing tangible connections with Hunter and Joe Biden. Furthermore, the Special Agent report recommended six felonies and five misdemeanors for Hunter’s tax problems. And yet, the federal government allowed the statute of limitations for 2014 and 2015 charges to expire, something that is practically unheard of. Moreover, allowing the misdemeanor charges to proceed in lieu of felony charges violates the Tax Division Manual.
The irregular actions of the Justice Department have tipped the scales in favor of Hunter Biden for reasons that are specifically unclear, but easy to speculate about (i.e. Joe). It’s incredible how brazen the government has been able to be.
by | BIDEN, BLOG, ECONOMY, ELECTIONS, LAW, POTUS, SOCIAL SECURITY
In a now-deleted Tweet written a week before midterms, President Biden tried to take credit for the Social Security increases that recipients will receive in 2023. The White House twitter account gleefully announced that “Seniors are getting the biggest increase in their Social Security checks in 10 years through President Biden’s leadership.”
The problem is that Social Security increases are based on a formula known as COLA, or cost-of-living adjustment, which measures inflation and the Consumer Price Index. The CPI was up 8.7% in the year-over-year comparison and therefore, seniors will receive an 8.7% adjustment.
It’s worth it to note that this increase is actually the largest since 1981, not just 10 years, because inflation is the worst it has been in four decades. One could argue that indeed it is his leadership (via his atrocious economic policies, mind you) that is the basis for the escalation in prices. But COLA increases and decreases have been tied to the CPI since the 1970s. That’s the law, not the President.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, GOVERNMENT, LAW, TAXES
A good tax system is built on four principles: simplicity, transparency, neutrality, and stability. Serious minded professionals and statesmen have known and pushed for these principles for generations. These principles should be the basis for tax policies created by lawmakers so that our tax system is organized and understandable.
The first principle is simplicity. By this concept, both taxpayers and the IRS deserve to have policies and a system that makes tax compliance and tax enforcement easy and understandable. No one should be obligated to wade through a system that doesn’t make obvious sense.
Next is transparency. A transparent system is one that clearly explains the tax in question, the steps needed to pay it, and the dates by which the tax is due. This should go without saying.
The third concept is neutrality. Neutrality means that no one industry is preferred over another nor any personal behavior given favor. Picking winners and losers in business or activities should not be the function of the tax system.
Finally, stability is key. Consistent tax laws without sunsets or changes from year to year provide predictability and help promote long term planning for taxpayers. If a tax system is fair and equitable, taxpayers should be able to count on it and plan for it into the future, without worrying that politicking and partisanship will create an unfair trap.
I had a recent conversation with Congresswoman Claudia Tenney (NY) on these concepts. At the end of our discussion she had a brilliant realization: that these four principles: simplicity, transparency, neutrality, and stability, not only make for a good tax system, but should be part of ANY legislation. Imagine Congress using these concepts to form the basis of all policies when considering the content of legislation?
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, CONSTITUTION, ECONOMY, GOVERNMENT, HYPOCRISY, LAW
The most recent stimulus package gives money to one segment of the population by taking money from another segment of the population. Since wealth transfers cannot reasonably be inferred as any of the acts allowable by the federal government under the Constitution, the Stimulus Act is blatantly unconstitutional.
The recent stimulus checks from the federal government are a pure, vote buying giveaway. Neither need nor negative impact from Covid are factors in getting these payments. While some people have experienced financial difficulties over the past year, the majority of workers are doing okay or better than they were pre-COVID. Because the economy is in a strong growth spurt, there is really no need for a general stimulus at this point. (It would be reasonable to help those impacted by covid, but this is only a very small portion of the recipients). Yet these stimulus checks are being provided to all taxpayers who earn under the government-defined income threshold ($150,000 married, $75,000 single).
Now in order to pay for the stimulus, Biden is increasing taxes on the wealthy — which includes taxpayers who were above the arbitrary line and therefore ineligible to receive a check. There couldn’t be a more direct relationship of taking money from one group and giving it to another.
This very act is a constitutional violation as the Constitution does not allow for wealth transfer.
by | BLOG, CONSTITUTION, FREEDOM, HEALTHCARE, LAW
Certificate of Need laws, otherwise known as CON laws, are laws required in many states and some federal jurisdictions before proposed acquisitions, expansions, or creations of healthcare facilities are allowed. They are also absolutely ridiculous and entirely based entirely on cronyism. CON laws are irresponsible, damaging to the economy, and a prime example of an assault on economic liberty.
A recent report by Mercatus noted that “Nearly six decades ago, New York became the first state to enact a CON law for healthcare services. A decade later, the federal government mandated state implementation of CON laws in an effort to control healthcare costs, increase access to care, and improve quality. When early research suggested that CON laws were failing to meet these goals, the federal government repealed the mandate, but many states kept their CON laws on the books.”
The creation of CON laws themselves were supposedly based on some economic theory that restricting competition was going to be better for consumers, but in fact, it’s the opposite. This means that it’s cronyism, not economics that put these laws into place, and that it is cronyism, not economics, that is keeping these laws intact all these years.It’s worth noting that even the federal government realizes that CON laws are terrible. They ignore basic economic principles, that when you restrict competition you get higher, not lower prices. Even though the feds undid their CON laws, the states did not, which means that the states were bent on cronyism, which was the real reason for the laws in the first place.
Ultimately, CON laws are unconstitutional because of their inherent economic favoritism. There’s no reason why some liberties should be treated differently than economic liberty and the right to earn a living should not be considered as fundamental as other rights. CON laws and their cronyism should be eliminated.
by | ARTICLES, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, LAW
Everyone is aware of the tragic death of Breonna Taylor and its surrounding circumstances. But many are calling for murder charges against the police officers who did the shooting, and are calling the event evidence of systemic racism. Both positions are ridiculously off base.
The grand jury did not charge any officers with the killing of Ms. Breonna Taylor in her home. The mainstream media would have you believe that this means that the grand jury was derelict in its duties. This skewed, biased view from the media is ignorant of the facts. The evidence clearly delineated that no laws were broken in connection with Ms Taylor’s shooting – the officers were acting within the legal confines of a warrant. The blame for this horrible outcome may well have been that the warrant was issued too easily and with terms that might create an unnecessarily dangerous situation. In fact, none of the actions by the police officers could be counted as homicide or murder nor could they be chalked up to systematic racism. Don’t let the media blind your vision as to where the real injustice is occurring: police warrants.
As Americans who have agreed to live within a republican system of justice, we have no right to contest the grand jury’s decision. However, we do have every right to contest the laws that created this situation. Laws can be flawed and as thoughtful citizens of a republic we have every right to go through the proper channels and request a change of law where we see fit. If the problem is a too aggressive approach by law enforcement, maybe No-Knock warrants should not be allowable, or at least much more restricted. The way to fix the problems that gave rise to the Taylor tragedy is not societal upheaval over racial injustice, as the grand jury found no clear racial motivation involved in the case. No – the answer is criminal law reform, specifically in relation to laws surrounding warrants.
The claim of systemic racism also has no basis. The police entered the home due to a narcotics case with a legally valid warrant to do what was necessary within the home to complete their objectives. The wrongdoing in this case is rather coming from why policemen are busting in in the middle of the night – who gave the order to do that, why is that allowed, and so many other questions that the media should be focusing on. If anyone is really looking to see where the problem was in the Taylor case, it was not the policemen executing a warrant nor the boyfriend who was shooting back in self-defense. Nothing in all this reflects anything about race. The media and demonstrators were charging racism long before the details of the case were known. That alone is clear evidence of the dishonesty of those claiming racism was the cause.
Criminal law reform is where the focus must be if we are actually going to create a better America. Someone’s head should roll. Not the policemen but those who set the dominos in motion. Maybe it’s not a particular person that needs correction but a whole system created by a host of people. The system is the problem. Let’s focus on fixing that.
by | BLOG, COVID, ECONOMY, FREEDOM, HYPOCRISY, LAW
Rioting and looting damage society and harm people. The recent protests on behalf of fighting institutional racism wreak with unlawful violence and hypocrisy. Of course there are plenty of peaceful protesters who have caused no physical harm to property or other individuals. These are not at issue. Rather, the focus should be on the 15 people who lost their lives from the initial George Floyd protests, the countless businesses suffering stark physical damage to their properties (and despite ignorant assertions to the contrary, never fully covered by insurance), and the many families who had their livelihoods ripped to shreds because of looting.
The violence that tore through Minneapolis and other cities in recent months is simply never justifiable. The argument made by NPR’s interviewee, Vicky Osterweil, who takes on the Marxist theory that damage to property is neither violent nor unlawful is clearly nonsense. We live in the United States of America, where property and the endangerment of the security of our citizens are imbedded into every page of our Constitution. In fact the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments delineate this protection of property rights explicitly. Violence to another person’s property is unlawful.
Not only has the recent rioting and looting been unlawful but it has been hypocritical to the highest degree. One mob even attempted to assault Rand Paul and his wife in the name of “social justice.” Disgusting hypocrisy as Rand Paul is the very one who introduced the “Justice for Breonna Taylor Act.” Multiple Americans who died in the Minneapolis riots were minorities. The very Americans – including many of those in racial minorities – whom the violent protestors claim to be protecting were harmed by sky-high property recovery payments and most likely will be faced with spiked insurance premiums in the future. The emotional, physical, and economic freedoms that the rioters and looters claim as their banner are precisely what they themselves are destroying.
If you want to go out and use your freedom of speech in a peaceful way, be my guest– it is your absolute right. If you intend on gathering together a mob full of hatred and hypocrisy, be ready for the consequences. We all ought to be raising our voices against the violent protestors as much as we are trying to solve the civil rights problems of our day. Shame on those who are hypocritically or ignorantly harming the well-being of our own American people.
by | BLOG, COVID, ELECTIONS, GOVERNMENT, LAW, POLITICS
The Democrat’s have had court victories in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and other states in connection with requiring that votes received after election day must nevertheless be counted. And in many of these decisions, the Courts have simply overruled the actual wording of the relevant law. Since it is accepted that many more Democrats than Republicans will be voting by mail, there seems to be a general belief that this is good for Democrats. But should that really be the takeaway?
It is quite clear that no matter what concessions the Democrats win in court, a huge number of mail-in votes will be invalidated. Whether because of mail delays (past even the extended deadlines), signature issues, proper following of instructions, etc. many ballots will be invalidated. I believe that these rejected ballots will far exceed any additional votes gleaned by enabling people to not have to physically go to the polls. People voting by mail are likely to be those who would, absent Covid, have gone to the polls. Extra votes would probably only come from “harvesting”, which will hopefully be quashed.
Also, I believe it likely that Appeals courts will reverse at least the most egregious overreaches by the state courts. It is hard to see how blatant rewriting of legislation could be considered acceptable, even by Democratic leaning courts. But unlike some, I do not believe that the Supreme Court will weigh in. I believe that SCOTUS will say that the States have ultimate authority to determine their own voting procedures.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, ELECTIONS, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, HYPOCRISY, LAW, POLITICS
With Kamala Harris as the Democrat’s Vice-Presidential candidate, it’s important to know that she has committed some rather egregious trespasses as a prosecutor. Just as disturbing is her fluctuating policy positions, calling into serious question her attempt to presently appear as a criminal justice reformer. Instead, Harris should be known for 1) her criminality and very poor judgement as a prosecutor 2) her hypocrisy, and 3) her opportunism.
One of the biggest areas of concern is her prosecutorial misconduct. In many instances, she basically acted as a rogue prosecutor who should have possibly been charged criminally for her own actions in some of the following incidents:
*During a case in 2015 in which a prosecutor concocted a confession from the defendant, thereby leading to the case being dismissed, Harris’s Attorney General’s office appealed the dismissal.
*During a case in 2015 in which a prosecutor in his case fabricated information to a jury relating to compensation to an informant, Harris’s Attorney General’s office fought the defendant’s appeal.
*During a case in which the entire Orange County DAs office was removed from the trial for failure to turn over evidence, Harris sought to block the removal.
*During a case in which a man was wrongfully imprisoned for 13 years, Harris’s office attempted to keep him locked up.
*After a crime lab technician purposefully tainted evidence in a vast amount of cases, Harris hid his actions while acting as a San Francisco DA.
Furthermore, Kamala Harris has worked on rebranding herself from previously being tough on crime to more sympathetic to justice warriors. For instance:
* Until 2014, Harris was against the legalization of marijuana while acting as the Attorney General of California.
* Harris declined to support criminal justice sentencing reforms that were on the ballot in California in 2012 and 2014.
* Harris’s office opposed an order to lessen the amount of prisoners in California, while supporting the use of prisoners as laborers due to the low cost.
* During her time serving as the Attorney General in California, Harris supported the dubious practice of civil asset forfeiture under the guise of going after drug operations.
Additionally, Harris was eager to be in the spotlight while moving up the political chain in California; two ridiculous incidents in particular come to mind.
*While running for US Senate, Harris’s office arrested the owners of Backpage, a site for classified sex workers, after publicly declaring that they “were protected from prosecution under federal speech law.” The case was promptly thrown out by a judge.
*While running for US Senate, Harris’s office went after for-profit colleges in California as part of an Obama initiative, while subsequently refusing to release any buyer of potential future liability– meaning anyone purchasing would be under constant threat of a lawsuit. Subsequently, no buyer would accept the terms. The Corinthian college system therefore shuttered 23 schools, putting people out of work and education.
Kamala Harris has repeatedly shown to have no moral compass. Her actions as a prosecutor should be alarming, as well as her hypocritical flip-flopping of positions. She has shown to be a mercurial political opportunist and has no business being a Vice-Presidential candidate.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, GOVERNMENT, HYPOCRISY, LAW, POTUS, TRUMP
It’s really sad that Mitt Romney went off the deep end with regard to the commuting of Roger Stone’s sentence. Trump’s timing was definitely politically stupid and over the top. However, presidential pardons and commutations are often self-serving and inexplicable. Although Roger Stone was convicted of a relatively minor infraction of lying about something that was not of major significance, even that conviction was suspect because of clearly stated bias of the lead juror that should have led to a new trial. As such, his commutation was certainly less appalling compared to other pardons sometimes involving really horrific human beings.
Therefore, it is ridiculous that Mitt Romney declared Stone’s commutation was “unprecedented, historic corruption.” This is so absolutely wrong and incompetent that it could only be attributed the most vile case of Trump Derangement Syndrome. It seems that Mitt Romney either doesn’t know his history or is flat-out ignoring the fact that Stone’s commutation is one of a long line of Presidents using their Constitutional powers of pardon to benefit friends. Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon. Richard Nixon pardoned Jimmy Hoffa. Bill Clinton pardoned his brother Roger Clinton and Marc Rich, the “fugitive financier.” Clinton also commuted the sentences of 16 members of FALN, the terrorists responsible for more than 130 bombings spanning several years against the wishes of Congress. Likewise, Obama commuted the sentence of one of the FALN masterminds, Oscar Lopez Rivera, who rejected the original commutation in 1999. Surely these pale in comparison to Roger Stone? As it is, Stone remains a convicted felon because he did not receive a full presidential pardon so he is not completely off the hook.
Romney’s assertions are completely unfounded and shows that his judgement continues to be unreliable. His response was so off the charts that it should make everyone doubt the credibility of anything that he says.
