Monday, December 30, 2013

National ID headed for your wallet


e8abd2aa75c6




Big Brother to require digital features in driver’s license
(Tea Party) – Just when you wondered how much more intrusive Big Brother could be in your life, along comes the National Identity Card and Western Hemisphere-compliant travel document. You’re getting it whether you want it or not if you plan to drive in the United States or travel via airways or railways.
It’s bad enough that your medical records will be floating around in some obscure online storage area that likely won’t have airtight security like they will claim, but now the federal government will soon demand that state-issued driver’s licenses and ID cards comply with Department of Homeland Security standards.  (This as the administration continues to fight voter ID cards. A double-standard indeed.)

Just before Christmas the DHS announced a final schedule for fully enforcing its REAL ID Act of 2005.
Starting in January of 2014 a phased enforcement will begin with full-scale enforcement set for May 2017. At that point a state-issued driver’s license or ID card that does not meet minimum security standards set by DHS will no longer be accepted.
Unfortunately for Americans that remember World War II the implementation of REAL ID is a flashback to fascist, totalitarian states where innocent people were stopped by authorities demanding “Your papers!”
REAL ID in the US came about as a result of the concern for increased travel safety after 9/11 when the 9/11 Commission documented that several of the terrorists held valid state-issued driver’s licenses. As such, they freely boarded the planes that they would turn into death chambers—despite the fact that they were terrorists and had entered the US illegally.
New DHS requirements for state-issued driver’s licenses include a valid birth certificate, verification of Social Security Number, or documentation that shows the person is not eligible for SS, and proof of US citizenship—or proof that the applicant was lawfully admitted to the US as a permanent or temporary resident.
In addition to the DHS requirements, the federal government will set its own strict requirements as well.
To qualify as DHS-compliant the licenses or ID cards must contain built-in security features such as those that prevent tampering, counterfeiting and duplication of the documents for purposes of fraud.
REAL ID cards must establish the individuals identity which may include digital photographs and bar-coded information that captures key printed information on the card, such as name, address, gender, unique identification numbers, expiration date and more.
State-issued enhanced driver’s licenses—EDLs—are required to be issued in state facilities. Employees at such facilities will undergo background checks and federal and state criminal record searches. State-issued cards must fully comply with travel rules that are issued under the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI)and EDLs must meet valid passport minimums for travel with the US, Canada and Mexico in addition to Central America, South America, the Caribbean and Bermuda.
By May 2017 state-issued driver’s licenses and ID cards will not be considered valid by the federal government. Those individuals with non-compliant identification may not be allowed to pass through TSA checkpoints in airports or rail stations within the US or internationally.
“States have made considerable progress in meeting the need identified by the 9/11 Commission to make driver’s licenses and other identification more secure,” said David Heyman, DHS assistant secretary for policy. “DHS will continue to support their efforts to enhance the security in an achievable way that will make all of our communities safer.”
As of December 20, there were 21 states that were commended by the DHS for currently meeting the minimum standards for leadership in improving security for state-issued driver’s licenses and ID cards. They are as follows: Alabama, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Iowa, Indiana, Kansas, Maryland, Mississippi, Nebraska, Ohio, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Wisconsin, West Virginia, and Wyoming.
DHS also announced extensions for 20 states and territories that have shown they are moving toward full compliance: Arkansas, California, District of Columbia, Guam, Idaho, Illinois, Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, U.S. Virgin Islands, and Virginia.
According to DHS, those states/territories that are not REAL ID complaint include: Alaska, American Samoa, Arizona, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Marianas, Oklahoma, and Washington State.
Currently, 75 percent of all US drivers hold licenses either from states identified as meeting the REAL ID standards or from those who have received an extension.
The TSA will accept driver’s licenses and state-issued ID cards until at least 2016 from all jurisdictions which means that enforcement for boarding aircraft will not begin before that time.
Big Brother is watching.
http://www.teaparty.org/national-id-headed-wallet-32574/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=social

Congress letting 55 tax breaks expire at year end


In an almost annual ritual, Congress is letting a package of 55 popular tax breaks expire at the end of the year, creating uncertainty -- once again -- for millions of individuals and businesses.
Lawmakers let these tax breaks lapse almost every year, even though they save businesses and individuals billions of dollars. And almost every year, Congress eventually renews them, retroactively, so taxpayers can claim them by the time they file their tax returns.
No harm, no foul, right? After all, taxpayers filing returns in the spring won't be hurt because the tax breaks were in effect for 2013. Taxpayers won't be hit until 2015, when they file tax returns for next year.
Not so far. Trade groups and tax experts complain that Congress is making it impossible for businesses and individuals to plan for the future. What if lawmakers don't renew the tax break you depend on? Or what if they change it and you're no longer eligible?
"It's a totally ridiculous way to run our tax system," said Rachelle Bernstein, vice president and tax counsel for the National Retail Federation. "It's impossible to plan when every year this happens, but yet business has gotten used to that."
Some of the tax breaks are big, including billions in credits for companies that invest in research and development, generous exemptions for financial institutions doing business overseas, and several breaks that let businesses write off capital investments faster.
Others are more obscure, the benefits targeted to film producers, race track owners, makers of electric motorcycles and teachers who buy classroom supplies with their own money.
There are tax rebates to Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands from a tax on rum imported into the United States, and a credit for expenses related to railroad track maintenance.
A deduction for state and local sales taxes benefits people who live in the nine states without state income taxes. Smaller tax breaks benefit college students and commuters who use public transportation.
A series of tax breaks promote renewable energy, including a credit for power companies that produce electricity with windmills.
The annual practice of letting these tax breaks expire is a symptom a divided, dysfunctional Congress that struggles to pass routine legislation, said Rep. John Lewis of Georgia, a senior Democrat on the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee.
"It's not fair, it's very hard, it's very difficult for a business person, a company, to plan, not just for the short term but to do long-term planning," Lewis said. "It's shameful."
With Congress on vacation until January, there is no chance the tax breaks will be renewed before they expire. And there is plenty of precedent for Congress to let them expire for months without addressing them. Most recently, they expired at the end of 2011, and Congress didn't renew them for the entire year, waiting until New Year's Day 2013 -- just in time for taxpayers to claim them on their 2012 returns.
But Congress only renewed the package though the end of 2013.
Why such a short extension? Washington accounting is partly to blame. The two-year extension Congress passed in January cost $76 billion in reduced revenue for the government, according to the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation. Making those tax breaks permanent could add $400 billion or more to the deficit over the next decade.
With budget deficits already high, many in Congress are reluctant to vote for a bill that would add so much red ink. So, they do it slowly, one or two years at time.
"More cynically, some people say, if you just put it in for a year or two, then that keeps the lobbyists having to come back and wine-and-dine the congressmen to get it extended again, and maybe make some campaign contributions," said Mark Luscombe, principal tax analyst for CCH, a consulting firm based in Riverwoods, Ill.
This year, the package of tax breaks has been caught up in a debate about overhauling the entire tax code. The two top tax writers in Congress -- House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp, R-Mich., and Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont. -- have been pushing to simplify the tax code by reducing tax breaks and using the additional revenue to lower overall tax rates.
But their efforts have yet to bear fruit, leaving both tax reform and the package of temporary breaks in limbo. When asked how businesses should prepare, given the uncertainty, Camp said: "They need to get on board with tax reform, that's what they need to do."
Further complicating the issue, President Barack Obama has nominated Baucus to become U.S. ambassador to China, meaning he will soon leave the Senate, if he is confirmed by his colleagues.
As the Senate wound down its 2013 session, Democratic leaders made a late push to extend many of the tax breaks by asking Republican colleagues to pass a package on the floor of the Senate without debate or amendments. Republicans objected, saying it wasn't a serious offer, and the effort failed.
So should taxpayers count on these breaks as they plan their budgets for 2014?
"The best thing I would say is, budget accordingly," said Jackie Perlman, principle tax research analyst at The Tax Institute at H&R Block. "As the saying goes, hope for the best but plan for the worst. Then if you get it, great, that's a nice perk. But don't count on it."

Harvard Prof: Tea Party Not Going Anywhere, More Likely to Win


A government and sociology professor at Harvard writes that the Tea Party is more likely than not to "win in the end" in an age when Americans are becoming more removed from Washington and distrusting the federal government and their elected officials. 
"Tea Party forces will still win in the end," Theda Skocpol writes, unless moderate Republicans can defeat them. Skocpol concedes that the Tea Party "will triumph just by hanging on long enough" as Americans are getting fed up by "our blatantly manipulated democracy and our permanently hobbled government."
The article, "Why The Tea Party Isn't Going Anywhere," was first published in the journal Democracy, and later reprinted in The Atlantic.
Despite the fact that Democrats, the mainstream media, and the Republican establishment again were predicting the "demise of the Tea Party" immediately after the government shutdown ended, Skocpol doesn't believe so.
"But we have heard all this before," she writes. "The Tea Party’s hold on the GOP persists beyond each burial ceremony."
Skocpol and Vanessa Williamson published a book in 2011 that "showed how bottom-up and top-down forces intersect to give the Tea Party both leverage over the Republican Party and the clout to push national politics sharply to the right."
"At the grassroots, volunteer activists formed hundreds of local Tea Parties, meeting regularly to plot public protests against the Obama Administration and place steady pressure on GOP organizations and candidates at all levels," they found. "At least half of all GOP voters sympathize with this Tea Party upsurge."
Though Skokpol and Williamson have their typical biases and describe the Tea Party movement as a "radical" one that may not like minorities--without any evidence of that assertion--they acknowledge that "even though there is no one center of Tea Party authority—indeed, in some ways because there is no one organized center—the entire gaggle of grassroots" and outside groups that support the movement "wields money and primary votes to exert powerful pressure on Republican officeholders and candidates."
Skocpol observes that the "Tea Party clout has grown in Washington and state capitals" because "Americans are also losing ever more faith in the federal government." In addition, "most legislators and candidates are Nervous Nellies," and they have seen the Tea Party defeat establishment Republicans like Charlie Crist in Florida in 2010 and David Dewhurst in Texas in 2012 in addition to knocking off incumbent Republican Sens. Bob Bennett (R-UT) and Richard Lugar (R-IN).
"That grabs legislators’ attention and results in either enthusiastic support for, or acquiescence to, obstructive tactics," Skocpol writes.
She writes how powerfully someone like Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) resonates with the Tea Party. She noted that he was able to direct House Republicans to pressure House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) to demand that President Barack Obama and Democrats fund the government except for Obamacare.
Skocpol notes that it will not be easy to defeat the Tea Party.

Read more....

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/12/29/Harvard-Prof-Tea-Party-Not-Going-Anywhere-More-Likely-to-Win

2013 Year in Review: Tea Party Beats Washington


The past year has by far been the best for the Tea Party movement in its short history. In 2013, the five-year old conservative grassroots upsurge has grabbed Washington, D.C. by the collar, tearing the city colloquially known as “Boomtown” in a conservative direction for the first time in decades. As the Tea Party movement matures, it is getting more professional in its political activism.

The way the Tea Party won 2013 is by entrenching itself in Washington warfare and fighting for conservative victories by connecting powerful grassroots activists directly with lawmakers in decision-making positions. What has happened is the movement has matured, and learned how to manipulate the ways of Washington to promote conservative policies while defeating liberal ones.
In the short months after President Barack Obama’s re-election, a core group of conservative House Republicans--many of whom were elected in 2010 or 2012--developed a plan to attempt to unseat House Speaker John Boehner on the House floor. While the early January vote was ultimately unsuccessful, the 12 House conservatives willing to stand up to Speaker Boehner scared him as he began the 113th Congress. That 12 of his own members were willing to vote against the Speaker was unprecedented in modern times, and given that only 17 votes were needed to actually remove Boehner, it put the veteran Ohio Republican leader on notice that any caving in 2013 would have drastic consequences for his future as Speaker. The narrative had been set: The Tea Party runs the House, and by extension, Congress.
Meanwhile, a little more than a month after Obama won re-election, Adam Lanza opened fire to kill 20 children and six staff members at Connecticut's Sandy Hook elementary school. Obama, emboldened coming off re-election, deputized Vice President Joe Biden to seize the opportunity to lead a push for gun control in 2013. Conventional wisdom in D.C. would have had most Americans believe that gun control was going to happen.
The left’s plan was to pass legislation out of the Senate, garnering some GOP support, then force Boehner to cave and push some kind of gun control measure through the House.
But the president’s allies in Congress did not count on three conservative U.S. Senators--two of whom were elected in the Tea Party’s 2010 electoral surge and one of whom was elected in 2012 --to stamp out their prospects of limiting Americans’ Second Amendment rights. Sens. Rand Paul (R-KY), Mike Lee (R-UT), and Ted Cruz (R-TX) emerged to defeat gun control in the Senate.
How did they do it? They harnessed the power of the grassroots, energizing ordinary Americans while connecting the grassroots with their efforts in the Senate. Paul, Lee, and Cruz wrote to Senate Majority Leader Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) in early March 2013 to inform him of their intent to filibuster any effort to limit Americans’ rights as established by the Second Amendment.
Then, they rallied Americans against the efforts of the political elite using petitions and social media. While NBC News, New York Times, and CNN reporters inside the beltway wooed politicians in Washington into believing Americans supported restrictions to the Second Amendment, Paul, Lee, and Cruz systematically shut down the phony appearance of support for gun control and utilized Senate procedures available to the minority to kill any chances of a vote that would limit Second Amendment protections for Americans.

READ MORE...

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/12/29/2013-Year-in-Review-Tea-Party-beats-Washington

Nevada County Church Ordered To Remove “Support Our Troops” Sign



church sign

NEVADA COUNTY (CBS13) – A church is in a clash with Nevada County after being told to take down a sign with an American flag and a message to support the troops.
Simple Truth Church put up the sign to cover an old, rundown billboard. However the “Support Our Troops” sign is becoming quite controversial. If the church doesn’t remove the sign, it could be fined.
Most drivers CBS13 spoke with did not have a problem with the sign.
“It doesn’t bother me at all,” said one person.
But for others, it’s an eyesore. It’s for that reason someone complained to the county to have it taken down.
“It’s a little surprising. All we meant to do was beautify the area, the corner, and it’s a reminder for me — for everyone that drives by — to pray for the troops,” church member Julia Stokes said.
Bill and Julia Stokes say the sign was meant to send a positive message and the church never knew it would stir up such controversy.
“Why would you knock something that has an America flag on it that says ‘Support Our Troops?’ I have no idea; I really don’t,” said Bill.
The banner, put up three weeks ago, may be an upgrade from the faded realty sign that was there before. But, according to Nevada County officials, Simple Truth Church needed to have a permit before making the change. And, if they don’t remove it, the county may.
“If we don’t do anything, they may come out and cut the sign down. And, we would have to pay for them to cut the sign down, which seems to be pretty harsh,” said Bill.
The church is holding off on taking down the sign as long as it can. For now, church officials say it is bringing more followers to the Sunday service.
“People just drive by and love it,” said Julia. “There have been four new people come to our church because of that sign.”
The church will meet with the county sometime next week to determine exactly what will be done with the sign. In the meantime, members hope they can keep it up.
The previous realty sign stood for nearly 20 years without any permit issues.
Meanwhile, Simple Truth Church is in the process of finding a permanent home to worship.

http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2013/12/28/nevada-county-church-ordered-to-remove-support-our-troops-sign/

'Military-Style' Raid on California Power Station Spooks U.S.


When U.S. officials warn about "attacks" on electric power facilities these days, the first thing that comes to mind is probably a computer hacker trying to shut the lights off in a city with malware. But a more traditional attack on a power station in California has U.S. officials puzzled and worried about the physical security of the the electrical grid--from attackers who come in with guns blazing.
Around 1:00 AM on April 16, at least one individual (possibly two) entered two different manholes at the PG&E Metcalf power substation, southeast of San Jose, and cut fiber cables in the area around the substation. That knocked out some local 911 services, landline service to the substation, and cell phone service in the area, a senior U.S. intelligence official told Foreign Policy. The intruder(s) then fired more than 100 rounds from what two officials described as a high-powered rifle at several transformers in the facility. Ten transformers were damaged in one area of the facility, and three transformer banks -- or groups of transformers -- were hit in another, according to a PG&E spokesman.
Cooling oil then leaked from a transformer bank, causing the transformers to overheat and shut down. State regulators urged customers in the area to conserve energy over the following days, but there was no long-term damage reported at the facility and there were no major power outages. There were no injuries reported. That was the good news. The bad news is that officials don't know who the shooter(s) were, and most importantly, whether further attacks are planned.
"Initially, the attack was being treated as vandalism and handled by local law enforcement," the senior intelligence official said. "However, investigators have been quoted in the press expressing opinions that there are indications that the timing of the attacks and target selection indicate a higher level of planning and sophistication."
The FBI has taken over the case. There appears to have been some initial concern, or at least interest, in the fact that the shooting happened one day after the Boston Marathon bombing. But the FBI has no evidence that the attack is related to terrorism, and it appears to be an isolated incident, said Peter Lee, a spokesman for the FBI field office in San Francisco, which is leading the investigation. Lee said the FBI has "a couple of leads we're still following up on," which he wouldn't discuss in detail.  There has not been any published motive or intent for the attack, the intelligence official said, and no one has claimed credit.
Local investigators seemed to hit a dead end in June, so they released surveillance footage of the shooting. But that apparently produced no new information. The FBI says there have been no tips from the public about who the shooter might be and what he was doing there.
The incident might have stayed a local news story, but this month, Rep. Henry Waxman, the California Democrat and ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, mentioned it at a hearing on regulatory issues. "It is clear that the electric grid is not adequately protected from physical or cyber attacks," Waxman said. He called the shooting at the the San Jose facility "an unprecedented and sophisticated attack on an electric grid substation with  military-style weapons. Communications were disrupted. The attack inflicted substantial damage. It took weeks to replace the damaged parts. Under slightly different conditions, there  could have been serious power outages or worse."
The U.S. official said the incident "did not involve a cyber attack," but that's about all investigators seem to know right now. AT&T, which operates the phone network that was affected, has offered a $250,000 reward for information leading to the arrest and conviction of the perpetrator or perpetrators.
"These were not amateurs taking potshots," Mark Johnson, a former vice president for transmission operations at PG&E, said last month at a conference on grid security held in Philadelphia. "My personal view is that this was a dress rehearsal" for future attacks.
At the very least, the attack points to an arguably overlooked physical threat to power facilities at a time when much of the U.S. intelligence community, Congress, and the electrical power industry is focused on the risk of cyber attacks. There has never been a confirmed power outage caused by a cyber attack in the United States. But the Obama administration has sought to promulgate cyber security standards that power facilities could use to minimize the risk of one.
At least one senior official thinks the government is focusing too heavily on cyber attacks. Jon Wellinghoff, the chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, said last month that an attack by intruders with guns and rifles could be just as devastating as a cyber attack.
A shooter "could get 200 yards away with a .22 rifle and take the whole thing out," Wellinghoff said last month at a conference sponsored by Bloomberg. His proposed defense: A metal sheet that would block the transformer from view. "If you can't see through the fence, you can't figure out where to shoot anymore," Wellinghoff said. Price tag? A "couple hundred bucks." A lot cheaper than the billions the administration has spent in the past four years beefing up cyber security of critical infrastructure in the United States and on government computer networks.
"There are ways that a very few number of actors with very rudimentary equipment could take down large portions of our grid," Wellinghoff said. "I don't think we have the level of physical security we need."

Sunday, December 29, 2013

Rose Parade to Feature Same-Sex Wedding Float


The Pasadena Star news reports that a San Diego woman has called for the Rose Parade to be boycotted because it will feature a gay wedding atop a float. The float, sponsored by the AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF), is titled, “Love is the Best Protection.” The parade will be watched by an estimated 68 million people around the world.


San Diegan Karen Grube, who said her protest is not out of her religious convictions, and says she is opposed to having any wedding featured in the parade, has requested that corporate sponsors drop their funding of the parade if the wedding proceeds, asked the Tournament of Roses to ban the float, and established a Facebook page to look for additional supporters. Grube said, “Gay marriage is illegal in over 30 states, why would they promote something that is blatantly illegal? That’s just stupid.” She added that the Tournament shouldn’t support a “political agenda,” and concluded, “It used to be a family thing, to get up on New Year’s Day morning and watch the parade. It no longer is.”

Danny Leclair, one of the two hairdressers getting married on the float, said that some of the negative responses to the wedding are “heinous,” and continued, “It’s something that they don’t understand and so I expected it. We’re not dissuaded or upset or concerned. We’re simply acknowledging it … There’s a lot of people who think we’re doing this as a political statement. It couldn’t be further from the truth. Our stance is love is love and love will save lives.”

Ralph E. Shaffer, a professor emeritus of history at Cal Poly Pomona, disagreed, saying the wedding is an “in your face” act that might make people angrier toward gays. Shaffer, noting there will be several kisses between LeClair and his intended, Aubrey loots, added, “The problem is going to be the wedding kiss … I don’t know what the response is going to be.” he said.

AHF President Michael Weinstein said there was no political statement intended, and protesters should respect “the law of the land”:

There are as many opinions in the world as there are people, but our motivation is to validate the love that exists between same-sex couples and what we believe is the importance of validating these relationships in terms of protecting, particularly gay men from HIV and other STDs. We think the more we promote stable, long-term relationships, the better it will be.

Tournament of Roses officials stated, “Like all of our sponsors and float designers, AHF continues to help make the Rose Parade a premier event through original and creative expressions that connect to parade themes — as this float does.”

Obamacare Vending Machine Mandate Expected to Cost Millions

Sarah Jean Seman
Not even vending machines are outside the scope of Obamacare mandates. Under the bill's new labeling regulations nutrition information must be placed next to each slot of candy bars, chips, peanuts and cracker-jacks.
Around 457 pages into Obamcare, section 4205 stipulates:
"the vending machine operator shall provide a sign in close proximity to each article of food or the selection button that includes a clear and conspicuous statement disclosing the number of calories contained in the article."
This new mandate will cost the vending machine industry an estimated $25.8 million initially and an additional $24 million for every subsequent year.
According to the Associated Press:
The rules will apply to about 10,800 companies that operate 20 or more machines. Nearly three quarters of those companies have three or fewer employees, and their profit margin is extremely low, according to the National Automatic Merchandising Association. An initial investment of $2,400 plus $2,200 in annual costs is a lot of money for a small company that only clears a few thousand dollars a year, said Eric Dell, the group's vice president for government affairs.
"The money that would be spent to comply with this — there's no return on the investment," he said.
The mandate could create savings to the health care system if even .02 percent of overweight adults consumed 100 fewer calories a week, according to the Food and Drug Administration. However, not everyone is as optimistic of the mandate's outcomes:
Carol Brennan, who owns Brennan Food Vending Services in Londonderry, said she doesn't yet know how she will handle the regulations, but she doesn't like them. She has five employees servicing hundreds of machines and says she'll be forced to limit the items offered so her employees don't spend too much time updating the calorie counts.
"It is outrageous for us to have to do this on all our equipment," she said.
Brennan also doubts that consumers will benefit from the calorie information.
"How many people have not read a label on a candy bar?" she said. "If you're concerned about it, you've already read it for years."
It is difficult to say whether or not seeing the nutrition information next to a Twinkie will deter someone from buying it. However this regulation will certainly be a burden to businesses forced to pay millions more each year and is evidence of the expansion of the nanny state.

EXCLUSIVE--Liberty Institute: Veterans Affairs Bans Christmas Cards to Troops over Religious Content


According to the Liberty Institute, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is refusing to allow school children to give Christmas cards to veterans if those cards say “Merry Christmas” or “God bless you.” Religious liberty lawyers have sent the VA a letter demanding they immediately lift the ban.

Susan Chapman is a teacher at Grace Academy of North Texas and, at a parent’s suggestion, organized a project for students to take cards to wounded military veterans to thank them and cheer them up during the holidays. She attempted to deliver those cards to a VA hospital in Dallas on Dec. 22. However, VA staff reportedly stopped her when she entered the facility, telling her that gifts or messages with religious content were not permitted by VA policy.
“It is so sad that the VA is sending a message to our children that after all the veterans have done to fight for freedom across the world, the children have no freedom to say Merry Christmas to these honorable men and women,” Chapman said.
Texas-based Liberty Institute sent a demand letter to the VA, insisting they immediately drop this policy which allows a generic greeting but disallows references to Christmas, which is officially recognized as a national holiday under federal law.
Liberty Institute’s Director of Litigation, Hiram Sasser, responded in a statement, “The VA is once again engaging in unlawful religious discrimination. It is shameful that the VA continues to censor religious speech in Christmas cards when the VA knows it is against the law to do so.”
In saying “once again,” Sasser is referring to the VA being caught forbidding prayers or religious speech at VA funerals and cemeteries. Liberty Institute brought suit in that matter as well, where the VA settled the lawsuit and allowed the religious content to resume. In that Sept. 22, 2011 federal court settlement, the judge ordered the VA “not to ban religious speech or words, such as ‘God’ and ‘Jesus,’ in condolence cards or similar documents given by non-VAVS volunteer[s].”
There is also a lawsuit pending involving Evangelical Christians who were allegedly expelled from being VA chaplains because of their traditional Christian beliefs.
The letter from the Liberty Institute is available by clicking the link below

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/12/24/Obama-VA-Bans-Christmas-Cards-from-Students-for-Troops




Saturday, December 28, 2013

New ObamaCare fees coming in 2014


WASHINGTON — Here comes the ObamaCare tax bill.
The cost of President Obama’s massive health-care law will hit Americans in 2014 as new taxes pile up on their insurance premiums and on their income-tax bills.
Most insurers aren’t advertising the ObamaCare taxes that are added on to premiums, opting instead to discretely pass them on to customers while quietly lobbying lawmakers for a break.
But one insurance company, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Alabama, laid bare the taxes on its bills with a separate line item for “Affordable Care Act Fees and Taxes.”
The new taxes on one customer’s bill added up to $23.14 a month, or $277.68 annually, according to Kaiser Health News. It boosted the monthly premium from $322.26 to $345.40 for that individual.
The new taxes and fees include a 2 percent levy on every health plan, which is expected to net about $8 billion for the government in 2014 and increase to $14.3 billion in 2018.
There’s also a $2 fee per policy that goes into a new medical-research trust fund called the Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute.
Insurers pay a 3.5 percent user fee to sell medical plans on the HealthCare.gov Web site.
ObamaCare supporters argue that federal subsidies for many low-income Americans will not only cover the taxes, but pay a big chunk of the premiums.
But ObamaCare taxes don’t stop with health-plan premiums.
Americans also will pay hidden taxes, such as the 2.3 percent medical-device tax that will inflate the cost of items such as pacemakers, stents and prosthetic limbs.
Those with high out-of-pocket medical expenses also will get smaller income-tax deductions.
Americans are currently allowed to deduct expenses that exceed 7.5 percent of their annual income. The threshold jumps to 10 percent under ObamaCare, costing taxpayers about $15 billion over 10 years.
Then there’s the new Medicare tax.
Under ObamaCare, individual tax filers earning more than $200,000 and families earning more than $250,000 will pay an added 0.9 percent Medicare surtax on top of the existing 1.45 percent Medicare payroll tax. They’ll also pay an extra 3.8 percent Medicare tax on unearned income, such as investment dividends, rental income and capital gains.
Meanwhile, the Obama administration touted a surge of more than 2 million visitors Monday at HealthCare.gov, plus about 250,000 calls to ObamaCare call centers.
“Volumes remain high but not equal to [Monday] and we have not had to deploy our queuing system on the site,” said Julie Bataille, a spokeswoman for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, referring to a virtual waiting room that is activated when the site is overloaded.
“We are taking thousands of calls at our call centers, which remain open until midnight, and we are seeing thousands of visitors complete enrollment online,” she said.
It wasn’t smooth sailing for everyone on the troubled site.
Software techie Jeff Karaaro tweeted in frustration: “Got three different codes trying to submit plan choices. No [one] can tell me what they mean. I nor call center can complete my application due to error.”

Obama Commemorative 'Scandal' Plates


Friday, December 27, 2013

Hyposcrisy of Hollywood Liberals


Written on Wednesday, December 25, 2013 by

It stands to reason that most Hollywood actors, directors, and producers would be liberals because Hollywood is all about fantasyland, that place that does not exist but where liberals are most comfortable.  There are a few notable exceptions, but for the most part Hollywood is synonymous with liberalism.  I do not begrudge Hollywood types their political views, but I do wish those views were better informed and less hypocritical.  What chaps me about Hollywood is that it is filled with people who are quick to criticize the very nation that made their stardom and financial success possible.
Think about it.  Actors are entertainers.  They make their living doing the same thing little children do: playing let’s pretend. They do not invent new technologies that improve the quality of life.  They do not conduct agricultural research that feeds starving children in faraway places.  They do not start companies that employ hundreds of people and give them a chance to be self-supporting.  Hollywood actors—no matter how good or bad—are just entertainers.  They inhabit the land of fantasy.  No matter how much we enjoy a given movie, in the final analysis it is nothing more than a brief vicarious diversion from reality.  Of course, those of us who have real jobs and real lives can use a little vicarious diversion every now and then, so movies can serve a positive purpose.  But people who watch movies and those who make them need to remember that movies are just that: movies.  They do not convey upon those who make them any special knowledge or insights into politics.
Hollywood gives actors fame, money, and an audience.  There is nothing wrong with any of this. But fame, money, and an audience are assets that should be used responsibly.  This is where I part company with the majority of Hollywood actors, directors, and producers.  Some of the most irresponsible, hypocritical public statements on socio-economic issues are made by Hollywood actors whose knowledge of the subject in question is thinner than a sheet of paper.  For example, actor Marin Sheen decries the wickedness of corporate America but acts in movies developed, produced, and paid for by corporate America.  Hollywood movie studios and production companies are corporations.  In fact, they are some of the most entrepreneurial corporations west of Wall Street.
Director George Lucas made not millions but billions from his movies, yet he is a critic of what he calls “capitalist democracy.”  He would prefer a socialist democracy.  What hypocrisy.  George Lucas made his billions from the most capitalistic, entrepreneurial business in America.  In fact, a substantial part of his fortune was earned from retailing movie related merchandise.  Actor Russell Brand favors a “socialist, egalitarian system based on the massive redistribution of wealth.”  Well Russell, if you are so interested in redistributing wealth get out your checkbook.  There are charities galore just waiting to hear from you.
Brand is typical of the hypocrites now so closely associated with Hollywood. They want to redistribute all of the wealth of the world; all of it that is except their own.  If you have grown weary of the hypocrisy emanating out of Hollywood, I can recommend a book that will make you feel better.  Hollywood Hypocrites was written by Jason Mattera.  Mattera makes his living confronting Hollywood hypocrites with their own hypocrisy.  Here is an example of his good work: Mattera confronted Harrison Ford who was spouting the usual Hollywood tripe about global warming with the fact that he owns seven airplanes; a fact that gives Harrison a carbon footprint bigger than Al Gore’s ego.  Congratulations to Jason Mattera.  It’s about time someone held Hollywood actors accountable for their hypocrisy.

Report: ESPN Has Received $260M in Tax Breaks from Connecticut


ESPN, a company that makes $6 billion a year in cable subscription fees, has received nearly $260 million in tax breaks from Connecticut over the past 12 years. 

As the New York Times notes, ESPN is "hardly needy," because with "100 million households paying about $5.54 a month for ESPN, regardless of whether they watch it, the network takes in more than $6 billion a year in subscriber fees alone."
Yet, according to a Times analysis of public records, "ESPN has received about $260 million in state tax breaks and credits over the past 12 years," including "$84.7 million in development tax credits because of a film and digital media program, as well as savings of about $15 million a year since the network successfully lobbied the state for a tax code change in 2000."
Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy, a Democrat, belives that "the conventional wisdom is that any business with ESPN is good business. After all, ESPN is Connecticut’s most celebrated brand and a homegrown success story, employing more than 4,000 workers in the state." To him, "ESPN is one of Connecticut’s best resources, and the state must use all tools available to aid its growth and keep its home base and the thousands of well-paying jobs it promises in Bristol."
ESPN reportedly "employs one of the top lobbying firms in Connecticut and has spent $1.2 million on lobbying expenses since 2007," which may explain its favorable tax benefits.
Since 2006, ESPN has received about "$84.7 million in tax certificates — about a fifth of the total amount awarded" from a fund meant to expand Connecticut's digital footprint. ESPN has used most of those tax certificates to develop its digital sites, but it also "regularly sells the tax credit certificates to other entities in private transactions, which could mean that the network receives less value than the amount on the voucher. Such transfers are common and within the rules of the program.""
According to the Times, "ESPN has spent about $1 billion on construction in and around Bristol, a town of about 60,000, erecting 13 new buildings and expanding several others. During that period, the company’s work force in Connecticut has swelled from 1,700 to more than 4,000," making ESPN the 25th-largest employer in the state. They have underwritten many charitable ventures--like the Boys and Girls Clubs. 

Lawmakers in Connecticut in favor of the tax breaks have said they do not want the company to relocate to Orlando, Los Angeles, or Austin while critics have said there is no evidence that ESPN would want to permanently go to those locations and do not need to be subsidized with taxpayer funds.

A Well-Armed Militia: It’sTime for Veterans to Take a Stand


Montgomery Granger is a retired, three times mobilized U.S. Army Reserve major, and author of Saving Grace at Guantanamo Bay: A Memoir of a Citizen Warrior. More of his work can be found at his website.


The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, a document I swore to uphold and defend with my life, states:
“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Considering the current government assault on military benefits, and considering the administration’s response to the Benghazi attack, I am wondering just how much consideration some might give to joining our all-volunteer force in the future?
I wonder too, if the Framers imagined a government “Of the People, by the people and for the People” ever reneging on the promises made to those of us who swore our lives to defend this great nation, including its supreme law? Here’s something President Abraham Lincoln said about our commitment to the veteran in his Second Inaugural Address, on March 4, 1865, with the end of the Civil War in sight:
“With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation’s wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow, and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.”
This is a promise, borne of a sense of duty and righteousness toward those who bore the burden of supporting this great nation with their blood, sweat and tears. This promise is the legacy of a nation born in blood and preserved in honor.
This promise is the legacy of a nation born in blood and preserved in honor.
Share:
What is happening now in the great halls of our government in Washington, D.C., is a desecration of that promise. A little here, a little there; capping cost of living increases for military; eliminating this benefit for years for retirees,;reducing pension growth for disabled retirees and survivors; preventing Reservists from collecting retirement pay for decades; and reducing retiree benefits by 20 percent. It all adds up to more than $6 billion in “savings” over 10 years.
A Well Armed Militia: ItsTime for Veterans to Take a Stand
Vietnam War veteran Fred Johnson, 73, watches people shop at a yard sale held to benefit Jerral Hancock, a 27-year-old Iraq war veteran who lost his left arm and is paralyzed from the waist down in a bomb explosion in Iraq, on Saturday, Oct. 26, 2013, in Lancaster, Calif. When the seniors in Jamie Goodreau’s high school history class learned Hancock was once stuck in his modest mobile home for months when his handicapped-accessible van broke down, they decided to build him a new house from the ground up. It would be their end-of-the-year project to honor veterans, something Goodreau’s classes have chosen to do every year for the past 15 years. (AP Photo/Jae C. Hong)
Tens of thousands of my fellow returning veterans from the Global War on Terror (still being fought world wide with U.S. troops in over 150 countrieswill receive less and less of what we were promised.
Staff Sgt. Alex Jauregui, a double amputee, disabled Army veteran who lost his legs while on his fourth tour in Afghanistan, and who removed a barrier to a military monument in Washington, D.C., during the government shutdown earlier this year using his Segway, said in a “Fox News” interview that he feels “betrayed” by the vote, and that his friends who are still in the Army are considering leaving military service if the government can’t keep the promises it made.
A Well Armed Militia: ItsTime for Veterans to Take a Stand
Photo Credti: Twitter via @andrewbcreech
I don’t own a gun, but I carried and used one in the service of my country in a combat zone. I’ll be damned if anyone tries to infringe on that right for myself or anyone else. It has crossed my mind in the past year or so, with all the writing on the wall about reduction in military benefits, that something is going to give: That something is the relationship between the soldier and the civilian leadership of this country.
I have considered purchasing a gun or two, and not just for self-protection or that of my family, but for the protection of my country and the ideals I swore, and never rescinded, to uphold upon my enlistment into the Army, and then again upon my commissioning as an officer. A well-armed militia contributes to a secure nation, and allows the many hundreds of thousands of veterans to continue to defend the Constitution, against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
That’s a serious situation for serious times. On Dec. 17, the Senate voted through a two year budget package that includes the cuts mentioned previously. The intentions of this government towards its military are clear. Trust no one, believe nothing, and only fools will join the military service. Why pledge your life, livelihood and the protection of your family should they survive you to such a noble cause if everything that was promised to you is a lie?
Our lives are the ultimate sacrifice, sacred, holy and complete. If that’s not good enough to receive basic benefits, promised upon enlistment, then the leadership of this country has surely lost its way. Like Gettysburg, Pearl Harbor, D-Day and 9/11/01; Wednesday, Dec, 17, 2013, should go down as a day of infamy: when Congress voted to renege on solemn promises to the defenders of our freedom and liberty.
We, each of us veterans, is beholden to the promise we made upon swearing in to uphold and defend the Constitution, and now we have to make good on that promise. The question is, will our representatives in Washington listen or will the well-armed militia need to be mobilized?

Fecundophopia: Why Liberals Fear children


by David L. Goetsch
For years, I have thought that the real motivation behind the pro-abortion movement is convenience.  Pro-abortionists like to wave the banner of choice when, in fact, the issue is really convenience.  By failing to exercise the many choices she had prior to becoming pregnant, a women winds up with a baby growing inside of her, a baby she does not want.  It is simply not convenient for the woman in question to give birth to a child, so she chooses abortion.  I wonder if there could be a more damning example of self-centeredness than the choice to abort a child out for the sake of convenience.  But, just when you think you have heard everything the left comes up with its latest surprise:  fecundophobia.
Fecundophobia, a term coined by journalist Molly Hemingway, is a fear of and contempt for children, large families, and fertile women (hence the term “fecund”).  The issue recently came to light when Tiffany Rivers, wife of San Diego Chargers quarterback Philip Rivers, gave birth to their seventh child.  Based on the media’s response to the birth, you would have thought that Philip and Tiffany Rivers had committed treason.  And, if they were liberal secular humanists, the birth of a seventh child would have been considered treasonous.  For that matter, the birth of one child would make them suspect.  Liberals understand aborting children, but they don’t seem to be able to cope with actually giving birth to them.
Liberals once used the over-population argument to justify their aversion to children (they always look for a high-road rationale to disguise their real motivations).  However, as government census data began to show that the U.S. population is actually declining, that falsely high-minded argument had to be dropped.  In fact, according to futurist George Friedman, author of The Next 100 Years, in the not too distant future America’s declining population will change the focus of immigration policy from keeping them out to enticing them to come.  This has forced liberals to regroup and take another approach.
Now, rather than try to justify their unjustifiable aversion to children, liberals have done what they always do: they have gone on the offensive.  Rather than explain why they don’t want children, they demand that other people explain why they do.  One of my fellow authors at this site has eleven children, all of them outstanding young Americans who are a joy to know and who are making contributions to the good of their communities and society in general.  But when liberals learn that this author has eleven children, their response is predictable:  Why? To this author’s credit, he quickly responds: Why not?
I will admit that it does not bother me when liberals choose to forego childbearing, so long as they do not use abortion as their chosen method of birth-control.  After all, their self-imposed barrenness might actually decrease the size of the liberal gene pool. What bothers me about liberals is that they demand that the rest of us make the same choices they make.  It is never enough for liberals to live by their own convictions.  They are not happy until everyone else is required—preferably by government fiat—to live according to liberal convictions. Hence, the negative response of the media to the seventh child of Philip and Tiffany Rivers.
Fecundophobia is a recent socio-cultural phenomenon.  I am old enough to remember when large families were the norm rather than the exception.  When I was a child it was small families not large that society looked askance at.  Much has changed since those days of yore, and not necessarily for the better.  What really bothers liberals about Philip and Tiffany Rivers having seven children is that they are a traditional married couple and they and their children are a traditional family.  If Philip Rivers were like some of his NFL colleagues who have fathered numerous children out of wedlock, liberals would applaud him.

The Battle for Religious Freedom Beyond the Year 2013

by Rowan Besthe
The past year, 2013, saw the continued attack on religious freedom stretching the entire year, not just around the yuletide season.  Actually, it was a further attack on Christian freedom.  Christianity saw the usual Christmas time bans on school carols and atheist billboards, but also saw a year-long battle in the military.  Legal actions to effect these bans and outright attacks on Christianity are always conducted under the auspices of separation of church and state.  I agree with the separation counter argument that it is not explicitly stated in the Constitution and the legal pretext should not have been created.  However, the Supreme Court established that precedent.  On the other hand, I would argue against the authenticity of the separation of church and state on the basis of tradition and negative endorsement supporting the fundamental right of religious freedom.
Early in 2013, the military extended an invite to MRFF founder Mikey Weinstein for consultations to “develop court-martial procedures to punish Christians in the military who express or share their faith.”  The threat seemed a little far flung, but as the year wore on, there were reports of: the Air Force cracking down on Christians, the Air Force punishing evangelical Christians, Catholic chaplains furloughed and threatened with arrest for performing Mass during the shutdown, the Army considered Christians and the Tea Party a terrorist threat, a Pentagon training manual labelled white males having unfair advantage, the VA forced out chaplains, the Air Force dropped “so help me God” in oaths, the Air Force bans the Nativity Scene, and ruling that the Mt. Soledad war memorial cross be removed, to name a few.  This is on top of the well-worn yearly Christmas bans on displaying Christian symbols or the Christmas colors green and red in the classroom, singing carols in schools, Atheists running anti-Jesus Christmas billboard ads, and network or cable TV choosing not to run Christian ads.
Separationists contend that the Constitution gives the justification to separate church and state.  Yet the phrase separation of church and state does not appear in the Constitution under the First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
The separation is attributed to Thomas Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, and quoted by the Supreme Court, wherein he posited a wall of separation:
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between church and state.
That the Supreme Court interpreted the due process clause as enabling it to bind the states to constitutional prohibitions of the Federal government, appears to be over stepping their bounds (Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947)).  The incorporation doctrine serving as the model used to bind the states is controversial and seems to fly in the face of the framers who clearly omitted the states from those prohibitions, especially with respect to the First Amendment – “The prohibition on states was removed by the Senate, while the restrictions on the Federal Government were combined and recast into what came to be the First Amendment.
Unfortunately, we are stuck with the precedent of that, and subsequent, Supreme Court decisions.  Or are we?  I would argue that there is legal precedent that could overturn or defeat separation law suits.  I offer the following arguments for reversal of the Mt Soledad cross verdict, and others.  The courts have entertained tradition in the determination of Due Cause and Fundamental Rights.  Religious freedom is a right among the latter.  Tradition, in the sense of statutory limits, has legal implication for other certain rights such as property rights pertaining to easements.  In particular, easements by prescription, whereby the use is open and notorious, actual and continuous, adverse to the rights of the true property owner, hostile, and continuous for a statutorily defined period of time.  With respect to the Mt. Soledad cross, you could argue that a prescriptive easement has been established by the enduring placement of the cross, for whatever original reason, since its erection in 1913.  I would also argue the same for nativity scenes placement on public land, in front of town halls across the US.  They are traditionally placed and in a repetitive manner, over time, so as to establish a continual presence every year at the designated time of Christmas.  Notwithstanding arguments of prescription, the act of endorsement, vis a vis the First Amendment, engenders a positive and negative act.  An entity condoning an act could be perceived as positively endorsing said act.  Whereas an entity restricting an act could be perceived as negatively endorsing said act.  If the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment is taken to mean that government will not positively endorse an act and the Prohibition Clause, “prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” is taken to mean that government will not negatively endorse an act, then the government must remain passive to any such endorsement, be it positive or negative.  Especially with respect to a fundamental right.  The right to religious freedom also implies freedom of conscious, where government cannot infringe on a person’s beliefs.  Therefore, while a person may work for the government, that person’s beliefs cannot be infringed.  That person or persons should then be free to place a religious symbol as they see fit.  Separationists conveniently forget to include the Prohibition Clause, which renders the government impotent to make any law for or against religion, when taken as a whole with the Establishment Clause.
That’s where I stand.  If I haven’t offended you, then I haven’t tried hard enough.

Politico: Obamacare May Deliver 'Rude Shock' to Newly Insured


First-time health insurance purchasers may soon slam into the wall of reality when they learn their new Obamacare plans come with several expensive out-of-pocket costs. That fact, reports Politico's David Nather, has Obama administration officials nervous.

"The point of the Affordable Care Act is to cover people who haven't had health insurance before," writes Nather. "But because they're new to health insurance, they may be in for a rude shock: It doesn't cover everything. There are deductibles, for example--the amount of money you have to spend out of pocket before coverage kicks in--which can be very high with 'bronze' Obamacare plans, the cheapest kind." Copays and coinsurance are additional costs they may not be familiar with.
Nather added, "If newly insured people think they're getting free health care, or just think the deductibles are too high, they could be disappointed with their first experiences with Obamacare."
As Breitbart News has reported, the nation's level of insurance illiteracy is real and alarming. A recent Journal of Health Economics study found that just 14% of individuals who have health coverage could correctly answer all four of four basic questions about health insurance, including understanding what a “deductible” and “copay” are.
Experts say individuals who have never owned a health insurance plan will soon be surprised at just how many out-of-pocket costs come with the responsibility of owning your own health insurance plan.
"People will be surprised by the cost sharing provisions and find that they have to pay more than they thought," Alan Weil of the National Academy of State Health Policy told Politico.

Chamber of Commerce to Spend $50 Million to Crush Tea Party


On Christmas Day, the Wall Street Journal reported that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce says it plans to spend at least $50 million to "support establishment, business-friendly candidates in primaries and the general election, with an aim of trying to win a Republican Senate majority." 

"Our No. 1 focus is to make sure, when it comes to the Senate, that we have no loser candidates," said U.S. Chamber of Commerce top political strategist Scott Reed. "That will be our mantra: No fools on our ticket."
GOP establishment officials hope to elide Tea Party challenges by shrinking the nomination process down to a tight four-month window replete with penalties for states that shirk the rules.
The WSJ reported that Republican leaders "hope a less restive Republican caucus will allow the House to pass a farm bill and push ahead on at least incremental overhauls of the immigration system."
The Chamber's comments are just the latest salvo in a widening battle between the conservative Tea Party grassroots and the establishment wing of the Republican Party. Increasingly, the Tea Party's growing power and influence has unmoored Republican politicians from their traditional alliance with Wall Street in favor of grassroots conservative activists.
The shift comes as grassroots activists have re-framed the GOP's old "pro-business" stance into a "pro-free markets" positioning that eschews corporate welfare and taxpayer-funded crony capitalist giveaways to industries that make major political contributions and reap big government contracts paid for by voters.
The Journal says that joining the Chamber of Commerce will be groups like Karl Rove's American Crossroads, who "are preparing an aggressive effort to groom and support more centrist Republican candidates."

Not for rent: Homeowners battle Minn. city’s restrictions on rental property

More Big Brother in action:

This file photo shows a sign at an apartment building in Los Angeles.Reuters
Cities and property rights groups across Minnesota are watching a court case challenging the constitutionality of a first-in-the-nation rental crackdown. The Winona, Minn., ordinance prohibits homeowners from renting their property in the college community.
Three homeowners went before the Minnesota Court of Appeals on Dec. 12 to challenge the law.
"To me it's getting beyond what elected officials are supposed to do -- starting to dictate who can rent, who can't rent, who can do this, who can do that," said Ted Dzierzbicki, a plaintiff whose house is across the street from Winona State University. "They're not the kind of laws that benefit and protect people. It's more to do with somebody having a bug about something and trying to get a law towards it."
Winona implemented the nation's first comprehensive rental cap ordinance in 2006. The so-called 30 percent rule was imposed to rein in "excessive on-street parking, anti-social behavior and deteriorating housing conditions" among students renting houses near the university.
"The importance of the case is the city's ability to impose appropriate licensing standards for the betterment of the community," said George Hoff, who represented the city before the appellate court.
Since property owners with rental units were grandfathered in, the number of houses that can be legally rented varies block to block.
"Our argument is you cannot be denied your right to rent out your perfectly safe house to perfectly safe tenants just because a neighbor of yours has decided to do the same thing," said Anthony Sanders, an attorney with the Institute for Justice who argued for the homeowners.  "Otherwise the government is just picking and choosing who gets to exercise their property rights."