Thursday, 21 November 2013

Fwd: [New post] MUSLIM LOGIC from a popular Salafi cleric with a humongous shitstain on his head





BareNakedIslam posted: "ADVICE TO MUSLIM HUSBANDS: "If you marry a Christian or a Jew, you must hate her for her religion, if you cannot convert her. But it's OK to love her for sex or her wealth, but don't greet her at the door when you come home, greet the Muslim children firs"

New post on BARE NAKED ISLAM

MUSLIM LOGIC from a popular Salafi cleric with a humongous shitstain on his head

by BareNakedIslam

ADVICE TO MUSLIM HUSBANDS: "If you marry a Christian or a Jew, you must hate her for her religion, if you cannot convert her. But it's OK to love her for sex or her wealth, but don't greet her at the door when you come home, greet the Muslim children first." Click CC to turn […]

Read more of this post

BareNakedIslam | November 21, 2013 at 2:20 pm | URL: http://wp.me/p276zM-ZBu

Comment    See all comments

Unsubscribe to no longer receive posts from BARE NAKED ISLAM.
Change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:
http://www.barenakedislam.com/2013/11/21/muslim-logic-from-a-popular-salafi-cleric-with-a-humongous-shitstain-on-his-head/




--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Fwd: [New post] SYRIA: Two Chechen ‘ginger jihadis’ help FSA rebels behead a civilian and kill two women





BareNakedIslam posted: "Obama-funded FSA rebels belonging to the 'Noor al-Sham' (Light of Levant) Brigade are seen beheading a civilian man for 'heresy ' in the Aleppo countryside and then shooting two women who are thought to be related to the murdered man before dumping their "

New post on BARE NAKED ISLAM

SYRIA: Two Chechen 'ginger jihadis' help FSA rebels behead a civilian and kill two women

by BareNakedIslam

Obama-funded FSA rebels belonging to the 'Noor al-Sham' (Light of Levant) Brigade are seen beheading a civilian man for 'heresy ' in the Aleppo countryside and then shooting two women who are thought to be related to the murdered man before dumping their bodies in pits that were dug next to the crime scene. Eretz Zen […]

Read more of this post

BareNakedIslam | November 21, 2013 at 2:04 pm | URL: http://wp.me/p276zM-ZBp

Comment    See all comments

Unsubscribe to no longer receive posts from BARE NAKED ISLAM.
Change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:
http://www.barenakedislam.com/2013/11/21/syria-two-chechen-ginger-jihadis-help-fsa-rebels-behead-a-civilian-and-kill-two-women/




--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Fwd: OBAMA THE DICTATOR







http://www.humanevents.com/2013/11/20/obama-the-dictator/#.Uo07nWEkV9I.email

 

Obama the Dictator

By: Betsy McCaughey
11/20/2013 09:52 AM

President Barack Obama says he can "fix" the millions of canceled health insurance plans with an administrative change. He's claiming more executive power — power for himself — than the Constitution allows and playing fast and loose with the truth.

The culprit behind the cancellations is not administrative regulation, as Obama asserts; it's Section 2702 of the Affordable Care Act, which states that all plans sold in the individual market or small group market from Jan. 1, 2014 and onward must include the Essential Health Benefits package —- 10 categories of health coverage Washington "experts" deem essential, such as maternity care, even if you're 50 years old. Plans are being canceled because they don't fulfill all 10.

Only Congress can dispense with the deadline, so on Friday, the House made a legal attempt to halt the mass cancellations by passing a bill. But insurers and insurance commissioners in several states have said the "fix" is too late to retool by Jan. 1.

Amazingly, our arrogant president says he will veto that bill if it reaches his desk because it would allow insurers to sell the noncompliant policies to new customers as well as old ones. Though the real reason is that Obama wants to rule by edict.

This particular edict could place taxpayers on the hook. The American Academy of Actuaries warned that the fix is likely to cause healthy people to stick with their old plans, leaving the sickest in the new exchanges. That will clobber exchange insurers. Section 1342 of the law set up a mechanism to bail out insurers incurring losses, but it's funded by fees on insurers and employers. The actuaries predicted the pot of money might not be enough. "Costs to the federal government could increase," the group cautioned. But the actuaries got it wrong when they said "costs to the federal government." The federal government has no money. It's our money.

Obama time and again brushes off critics of the health law by saying Obamacare is "the law of the land," except when he wants to patch it up himself. "The Affordable Care Act is a law that passed the House; it passed the Senate. The Supreme Court ruled it constitutional. It was the central issue in last year's election. It is settled, and it is here to stay," he declared to his Republican opponents at an event hailing the law's implementation.

You could make that claim about the Affordable Care Act but not about Obamacare. The program the president is trying to roll out is a mangled, distorted version of the law.

Gone is the employer mandate (likely never to return), caps on out-of-pocket expenses, income verification (replaced by a limp substitute) and nearly half the deadlines in the statute, according to the Congressional Research Service. Then there are the additions: 1,472 waivers and a special deal weaseled for members of Congress to have their Obamacare health plans subsidized by taxpayers.

On Aug. 9, the president was asked where he gets the authority to make these changes. He replied: "In a normal political environment, it would have been easier for me to simply call up the speaker and say, you know what, this is a tweak that doesn't go to the essence of the law … let's make a technical change to the law. That would be the normal thing that I would prefer to do."

He's suggesting these are not "normal" time just because Republicans control the House. Sorry, Mr. President, but divided government — with an uncooperative Congress — is the norm.

Don't be shocked if an independent-minded insurer sues to stop Obama's most recent fix. Insurers have invested hundreds of millions of dollars creating and marketing health plans to conform to Obamacare.

Lower federal courts are already smacking down the president for his footloose way with the law. Though the Affordable Care Act says only state exchanges can provide subsidies to health plan enrollees, the Obama administration is trying to offer subsidies in all 50 states, rather than just in the 14 that set up exchanges. It has tried to get these lawsuits dismissed, but so far has failed twice.

This isn't just about Obamacare. On Aug. 13, the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the president for failing to obey a 2002 statute requiring the executive branch to take final action on the certification of Yucca Mountain in Nevada as a nuclear waste site. Judge Brett Kavanaugh ruled that "Under Article Two of the Constitution and relevant Supreme Court precedents, the president must follow statutory mandates."

In our country, the rule of law is king, not Mr. Obama.

Betsy McCaughey is a former lieutenant governor of New York and the author of Beating Obamacare: Your Handbook for the New Healthcare Law.

 



__._,_.___





   
__,_._,___


--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Fwd: [New post] Video: American jihadist, “We’ve come to spread the Sharia…kill anyone who comes in our way”





creeping posted: "The video claims he's an American named Abu Dujana although we couldn't find any info on where he is from in the U.S. He spoke English...before the Syrian army vaporized him. via Jihad Watch. http://youtu.be/7TzAR3UGX6U "We've come to spread the Shari"
Respond to this post by replying above this line

New post on Creeping Sharia

Video: American jihadist, "We've come to spread the Sharia…kill anyone who comes in our way"

by creeping

The video claims he's an American named Abu Dujana although we couldn't find any info on where he is from in the U.S. He spoke English...before the Syrian army vaporized him. via Jihad Watch. "We've come to spread the Sharia of Allah and qital...and we've come to kill anyone who comes in our way"  

Read more of this post

Comment    See all comments

Unsubscribe to no longer receive posts from Creeping Sharia.
Change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:
http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/2013/11/21/video-american-jihadist-weve-come-to-spread-the-sharia-kill-anyone-who-comes-in-our-way/

Thanks for flying with WordPress.com



--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Fwd: Joe Biden's Happy Birthday Meme-apalooza (39 images)

--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Fwd: [New post] Under President Lucifer: Parenting bad. Pedophilia good.





traildustfotm posted: " Let's cut to the chase on this story. We see all kinds of outrageous behavior on the part of public schools these days. What's the common denominator in all these things? I suggest it's the government asserting its authority over the God given structu"
Respond to this post by replying above this line

New post on Fellowship of the Minds

Under President Lucifer: Parenting bad. Pedophilia good.

by traildustfotm

Wrongful Arrest: a father arrested for picking up his child after school.

Wrongful Arrest: a father arrested for picking up his child after school.

Let's cut to the chase on this story. We see all kinds of outrageous behavior on the part of public schools these days. What's the common denominator in all these things? I suggest it's the government asserting its authority over the God given structure of the family. In short: Tyranny. ~ TD

Cumberland County parent outraged by his arrest

By KAYLA STRAYER
6 News Reporter

CROSSVILLE (WATE) - A Cumberland County father didn't want to wait in a long line of traffic to pick his kids up from school. That led to a series of encounters last week at South Cumberland Elementary, and now the dad's facing charges.

A 6 News viewer pointed us to YouTube video of one of the incidents.

"I'm going to call some help down here and we're going to take you up to the jail right now. I'm not putting up with this today. You're being childish and it's uncalled for," Sheriff Deputy and School Resource Officer Avery Aytes said in the YouTube video.

The video goes on to show the dad arguing with the school security officer over state law, then the dad winds up in handcuffs.

"I'm not raising my voice, I'm not confrontational, I want my kids," Jim Howe said in the YouTube video.

The video was taken by Amanda Long Thursday afternoon as she and her fiance, Jim Howe, were trying to pick up Howe's two children from school. It shows Howe arguing with Deputy Aytes.

Howe says, because of a new policy that started last week, the only way parents can get their children after 2 p.m. is to wait in a line of cars until everyone is released at 2:35. He says not only is this time consuming, it's illegal.

"You don't need a reason as a parent to go get your children. They are our children," Howe said.

As the video shows, Howe was arrested by Aytes for disorderly conduct. Deputy Aytes tells 6 News he's unable to comment because this is an open case. Cumberland County Sheriff Butch Burgess says he hasn't seen the video and doesn't need to, because it won't tell the whole story. He says Aytes was just doing his job.

"The resource officers are there to enforce the law," Burgess said.

The sheriff says he agrees with Howe on principle. Both men say the new policy is creating safety concerns, mainly because there is line of cars that along the highway outside of the school. Burgess says parents should take any policy concerns to those in charge of the policy, not the school resource officer.

"On the other hand, the school system needs to realize you can't make a black and white law," Burgess said.

"If not for policy, we would have chaos, and we don't need chaos at the schools, but we also don't need an over zealous deputy setting an example in front of kids," Howe said.

We were unable to get in contact with school officials for comment on the issue. The sheriff says he's reviewing the system and will make recommendations this week as to what changes should be made to ensure student safety.

Read this story in its native habitat: http://www.wate.com/story/24005228/cumberland-county-parent-releases-video-of-his-arrest-by-a-school-resource-officer

Comment    See all comments

Unsubscribe to no longer receive posts from Fellowship of the Minds.
Change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:
http://fellowshipoftheminds.com/2013/11/21/under-president-lucifer-parenting-bad-pedophilia-good/

Thanks for flying with WordPress.com



--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Fwd: UN aims for 'complete transformation of the economic structure of the world'





UN aims for 'complete transformation of the economic structure of the world'

Posted: 20 Nov 2013 06:32 AM PST

By Pat Carlson and Cathie Adams

The United Nations' climate change meeting began on Nov. 11 in Warsaw, Poland, to discuss "global warming," but when the globe stopped warming 16 years ago, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change was forced to reveal its real agenda.

Last year in Doha, Qatar, the treaty's Executive Secretary Christiana Figueres told the world that the purpose of the UNFCCC is a "complete transformation of the economic structure of the world." The scheme is to use the eternally unpredictable weather that affects everyone to manipulate a transfer of wealth from rich to poor nations, which in turn degrades every nation's standard of living.

Rather than serving as a warning to Americans, President Obama's delegation in Warsaw is steadfastly supporting the development of funding mechanisms for the transfer of wealth scheme through the Green Climate Fund, although it is somewhat reluctant to support its proposed new mechanism for "loss and damages." A new treaty to replace the redistributionist Kyoto Protocol is in the works and set for completion in 2015 in Paris, France, to go into affect in 2020.

Americans are paying for the rope to hang ourselves. We pay nearly $567 million a year while two dozen countries of the 193 UN members pay only about $1000 or less, yet have the same voting privileges as the U.S. (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/09/us-should-challenge-huge-un-funding-disparities).

Worse than one nation, one vote is that voting rarely happens at the UN. Instead, consensus is the UN's preferred process. Consensus is unilaterally determined by a facilitator leading a meeting. It lacks transparency and allows the UN to manipulate for predetermined outcomes. Former Prime Minister of the UK Margaret Thatcher defined consensus stating, "To me, consensus seems to be: the process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values, and policies in search of something in which no one believes, but to which no one objects; the process of avoiding the very issues that need to be solved, merely because you cannot get agreement on the way ahead. What great cause would have been fought and won under the banner 'I stand for consensus'?"

Everybody talks about the weather but nobody does anything about it. That is until the United Nations started talking about it. Their talks started with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil in 1992.  They have since convinced the world they can not only predict the weather but can control it.  These talks continue in Warsaw, Poland for the next two weeks, November 11-22, 2013, as the Conference of the Parties COP19 meet with country delegates, non-government organizations NGO's, and media to discuss not the weather but the climate.  The climate is what you expect.  The weather is what you get and the UN is certainly getting something much different than what they predicted.

The U.N. persists in its quest to convince the world that human activity is causing global warming and global warming will lead to the devastation of the earth.  The earth has not warmed since 1998 but the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IPCC continues to issue reports claiming global warming not only exists but is getting worse.

Their claims are based on pseudo science and totally unreliable computer models used to predict future weather patterns.  The latest report issued just before COP19 claims that projected warming will likely raise temperatures 0.5 to 8.6 degrees Fahrenheit by the late 21st century if carbon emissions are not reduced.  The report responds to the lack of warming since 1998 as probably linked to natural swings in the climate.  In other words, they can't explain why their computer models have been so wrong.

The talks are about blame.  To blame is to make someone responsible for the supposed wrong doing and if someone has done wrong they should pay a penalty.  The U.N. has made the case that developed nations such as the U.S. are to blame because we've enjoyed the fruits of the industrial revolution in our lifestyles.  These lifestyles have polluted a finite  atmosphere causing global warming.  Having used up this finite atmosphere cheats developing nations from achieving similar lifestyles.  This is referred to as "historical responsibility."  The penalty to be paid by developed nations, according to the U.N., is reparations (money) and technology.

Since global warming isn't really occurring now, the IPCC claims it's the cause of all the extreme weather patterns that have occurred in the past few years.  The most recent tragic events of typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines has given the perfect fuel for developing nations at COP19.  The tragedy the Philippine people have suffered is incomprehensible to most of us, but to think the human activity of developed nations caused the event should be beyond the realm of any intelligent person's thinking.  Not so at COP19.

The first day of the conference, the Climate Change Commissioner from the Philippines, Nadrev Sano, gave a speech in the main plenary blaming this on developed nations.  He began crying and said he would, in solidarity with his people, voluntarily fast until the COP reaches a meaningful outcome and delivers on climate action.   Translated this means "Let me see the money."

In a press conference, another Philippine delegate made similar remarks, saying the tragedy was "an abomination which is not our doing" and "we have to get support from someone else's pocket."   Yet nobody mentioned the U.S. Marines went in immediately to the worst hit areas bringing water, generators and other critical supplies.  The U.S. military also offered aircraft and manpower for search and rescue.  Private groups from the U. S. have sent in medicines, food, blankets, etc.  U.S. AID sent 55 metric tons of food.  So how much is enough?

This redistribution of wealth for the perceived "moral and ethical injustice" of climate change was first tried by the U.N. through Clean Development Mechanisms CDM's.  This was a way to get money and technology to developing nations through investments and loans for new infrastructure or just anything green.  But as with most U. N. programs there was abuse.  Most investments and loans went to China, India and Brazil and almost nothing went to the very small countries.

When CDM's didn't work, the Green Climate Fund GCF was introduced at COP15 in Copenhagen in 2009.  It was proposed $30 billion be given by developed countries over three years until 2012 as fast-start funding.  Then additionally, none other than Hillary Clinton proposed that developed countries collectively pledge $100 billion per year until 2020.  This sounded good but the pledges have been far short of anything close to $100 billion.  The U.S. claims to has given $32 billion from 2010-2012 and it is calculated, according to a U.S. delegate, the 2013 contribution will be $2.7 billion.

If the U.N. bureaucrats and the developing countries can't get concrete funding for the GCF at COP19, then the next trick up their sleeves is something called a "loss and damage" mechanism.  Loss and damage are insurance terms.  Legally loss means "the value placed on injury or damages due to an accident caused by another's negligence, a breach of contract or other wrongdoing."  Damage can mean "injury or harm impairing the function or condition of a person or thing."  Damages can also be ordered to be paid as compensation for injury or loss.

Defining and developing a loss and damage mechanism at COP19 is a top priority.  Whatever form this mechanism takes, it can only be seen as having one function and that is developed countries being responsible for insuring developing countries against natural disasters.  Again, the typhoon tragedy in the Philippines happened at an opportune time for COP19. This will be used as a driving force to get loss and damage pushed through.

One nation is taking issue with the consensus process by demanding that it be defined. Russia, not America, balked at the unilateral decision-making consensus process and is demanding transparency. The reason for the Russians demands is that at last year's meeting in Doha, Qatar, the UN took away its greenhouse gas credits accrued before the fall of communism. That means that Russia would "supposedly" be on an even playing field in this proposed new economic order being built under the treaty to replace the Kyoto Protocol.

The U.S. is a party to the UNFCCC, but not its Kyoto Protocol that was ratified by 192 of the UNFCCC Parties. The U.S. declined to be one of the 37 nations to be legally bound to Kyoto's emission limitation and reduction commitments. In Doha in 2012, a second commitment period was created for the Kyoto Protocol, with the U.S. remaining out. However, the U.S. is looking favorably at joining the 2015 treaty. More than 100 Heads of State of the 195 Parties to the treaty are scheduled to attend the high-level segment of the meeting, which concludes on November 22.

Pat Carlson is a trusted friend and ally of Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow who covers the global warming issue for Eagle Forum. She is the former President of Texas Eagle Forum. Cathie Adams is President of Texas Eagle Forum and the International Issues Chairman for Eagle Forum.

The post UN aims for 'complete transformation of the economic structure of the world' appeared first on NetRight Daily.

 

 

Email delivery powered by Google

 

 



__._,_





   
__,_._,___


--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Fwd: American Borders Will Be Changing







http://www.activistpost.com/2013/11/american-borders-will-be-changing.html

 

November 19, 2013

American Borders Will Be Changing

Wendy McElroy


An iron curtain is slowly descending around the borders of America. When it falls, some people will be shut in; others will be shut out. It will be up to bureaucrats and agents with guns to decide which one of those people you are.

Changes in border policy are in the wind. On June 27th, 2013, the 1,300-page Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act passed the Senate and proceeded to the House of Representatives. Debate on the Act has focused on the path of citizenship being extended to the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants in America. This is controversial because Republicans fear that the new Americans, and especially Hispanics, will vote Democrat in upcoming elections. Happily, the bill has stalled in the House.

But one of the worst features of the Act has bipartisan support: namely, the ramping up of border security. (The security provisions were a cynical bribe to House Republicans by Senate Democrats who are far more interested in ramming the immigration policies through.) The Act allocates an astounding $46.3 billion for increased border control. It proposes to hire 20,000 additional border patrol agents, swelling their numbers from about 21,000 (in fiscal 2012) to about 40,000. The stated focus of the mega bucks and muscle is the US-Mexican border but the entire system would be even more militarized.

Shutting People In

The proposed doubling of might comes in the wake of the Transportation Security Administration's (TSA's) announcement of a dramatic expansion in the screening of airline passengers. Even before a flyer arrives, he will be profiled by the TSA based on his travel record, and personal documents such as employment information, property records, police files, tax data, and car registration.




The number of travelers refused flights – or passports for that matter – is likely to increase. In fact, anyone can currently be refused the right to fly without explanation. And a long list of reasons to be denied a passport already exist. They include: having a felony such as a drug offense or repeat DUI; owing $2,500+ in child support; being in default on specific loans from the United States; or being deemed likely to cause "serious damage to the national security or the foreign policy of the United States." (The latter reason is elastic, especially since, again, no explanation for denial needs to be given.)

In past years, there have been several attempts to link the granting of passports to tax compliance. The latest one is H. R. 3146, which is now before the House. Sec. 4. is entitled "Revocation or denial of passport and passport card in case of certain unpaid taxes." It reads, in part, "If the Secretary receives certification by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue that any individual has a seriously delinquent tax debt in an amount in excess of $50,000, the Secretary shall transmit such certification to the Secretary of State for action with respect to denial, revocation, or limitation of a passport or passport card." It is only a matter of time before the right to travel is linked directly to a person's tax status.

Shutting People Out

And then there are those who could be shut out. The Expatriation Prevention by Abolishing Tax-Related Incentives for Offshore Tenancy Act – or the Ex-PATRIOT Act – came back from the dead in the above mentioned border and immigration bill. Again, the measure sought to ban certain expat Americans from legally returning to the US without receiving a waiver, this time from Homeland Security.

Having failed as a standalone bill, the new Ex-PATRIOT Act was introduced as amendment S.A. 1609; it piggybacked on another amendment to the omnibus border and immigration act. Smuggling measures into unrelated legislation is an increasingly popular ploy. For example, the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA), which devastated the ability of Americans to open bank accounts abroad, repeatedly failed as a standalone. It passed only by being tucked into to the 2010 Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment Act or HIRE. [Dollar Vigilante Note: Even more reason for you to click here to see how TDV can help you with an offshore account.]

What did S.A. 1609 specify? It would have shut the border to certain expatriates who renounced their citizenship. That act was considered to be tax evasion on its face. Any ex-citizen with a net worth of $2 million or an average income of $148,000 or more over the last five years would have been presumed to be banned from the border. To establish a right to return, the expat would have presumably needed to open up his finances to scrutiny.

S.A. 1609 did not make it into the final Act in the Senate, however. Democrats didn't want to risk the prospect of the bill being "blue slipped," as the Republicans had threatened to do. Blue-slipping occurs when the House rejects a bill outright because it is unconstitutional. The bill is then placed into a blue envelope and simply returned to the Senate. The amendment was deemed unconstitutional because it reformed a tax law. In the opinion of many, this violates the Origination Clause by which all spending and appropriations must originate within the House, not within the Senate. Expats were saved by a technicality.

What to Expect at the US Border?

More questioning. More in-depth screening. More difficulty in traveling to and from the United States. The situation will grow steadily worse through 2014, when a compromise bill on immigration and border control is probable.

With expanded authority and manpower, border control agents are also likely to start enforcing the fine print of the law. For example, it has been illegal for many years for an American to cross the border on anything but a US Passport; it does not matter if the person has dual citizenship and two passports. The American one must be used. 8 U.S.C. sec. 1185(b) states, "Except as otherwise provided by the President and subject to such limitations and exceptions as the President may authorize and prescribe, it shall be unlawful for any citizen of the United States to depart from or enter, or attempt to depart from or enter, the United States unless he bears a valid United States passport." The law has largely been ignored but it provides an convenient reason to refuse admission, especially to expatriates.

Whether you want to leave or to enter America, gridlock and technicalities will not preserve those options forever. Senator Jack Reed, a co-sponsor of Ex-PATRIOT, has asserted, "American citizenship is a privilege." It is a privilege that he and his ilk want to grant at their discretion. It is one of the surest indications of a police state: the inability to cross a border.

 



__._,_.___





   
__,_._,___


--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Fwd: [New post] Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we allow ourselves to be deceived by a so-called ‘moderate’ Muslim





BareNakedIslam posted: "The media are falling all over themselves gushing about a UK Minister, Baroness Sayeeda Warsi, a Muslim, who made a speech at Georgetown University about the danger of extinction of Christians. (Quite the departure from her usual obsession - 'Islamophobia"

New post on BARE NAKED ISLAM

Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we allow ourselves to be deceived by a so-called 'moderate' Muslim

by BareNakedIslam

The media are falling all over themselves gushing about a UK Minister, Baroness Sayeeda Warsi, a Muslim, who made a speech at Georgetown University about the danger of extinction of Christians. (Quite the departure from her usual obsession - 'Islamophobia') Because Warsi never actually uses the word 'Muslim' when speaking about the persecutors of Christians, […]

Read more of this post

BareNakedIslam | November 20, 2013 at 7:55 pm | URL: http://wp.me/p276zM-ZAm

Comment    See all comments

Unsubscribe to no longer receive posts from BARE NAKED ISLAM.
Change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:
http://www.barenakedislam.com/2013/11/20/oh-what-a-tangled-web-we-weave-when-first-we-allow-ourselves-to-be-deceived-by-a-so-called-moderate-muslim/




--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.