Economic stimulus for old junkers

http://editorial.autos.msn.com/article.aspx?cp-documentid=1059746

Also see automobile post of March 13, 2009.  In the Automobile section it is the third article down.

Everyone should read this article.  It is about:

Can’t Get Rid of Your Old Junker?

And in the near future (probably after the week of the 13th to the 17th of July) you will see that there is a tax credit involved with getting rid of your old junker.  I will be keeping my ear open for tax credits from Congress.  What is rumored is that Congress will allow a $4500 tax credit for old junkers when you purchase a new car.  That was new not used also.  Keep looking for this topic in future postings.

End

Elizabeth Campbell – Progressive/Conservative

The City of Seattle needs a Progressive and yet the City of Seattle needs a Conservative.

In the actions of attaining this goal Elizabeth Campbell is the perfect fit for this position. All of the other candidates are either lacking in skills or ambition to seek to this endeavor.

A Progressive, if being one who will reach out to achieve goals, is one who has a desire and a need to visually capture ideas and concepts which can be usefully implemented.

None of he other candidates have or can be able to do this.

Yet at the same time, the need to capture ideas and concepts must be within the realm of realism and from a conservative base. Our economic times dictate this approach. A hands on approach. A vision. But all of this must be achievable within a practical amount of time and from a basic fundamental approach of reality.

The vision of a Tunnel with an ever expanding cost basis does not capture this need for conservative progressiveness. Mayor Nickels and Councilwoman Jan Drago do not show vision.

From candidates who are from National Telecommunication businesses and from former sports team players with other business experience only one candidate excels out as experienced enough to take on the tasks which can truly reflect the needs which our city is needing at the present time.

Elizabeth Campbell has dug up non-considered plans which the city has buried. For some reason the present Mayor and City Council members have not wanted an alternative lower cost plan to be out in the light. Progressiveness must consider all ideas as viable even if the cost is lower and it does infringe on the rights of the campaign contributors economic principles or values of aggressiveness. The city needs need to first. The rights of the contributors should not exceed the rights of the taxpayers.

The city is proposing a homeless-ness bond issue. Elizabeth Campbell has been walking this walk selflessly throughout her life and even her grandfather, our third governor, was walking this walking, John Rankin Rogers (1894; Homes for the Homeless, 1895; Free Land: The Remedy for Involuntary Poverty . . . ).

It is about time the City of Seattle again acquaints itself back to economic reality and yet realizes that institutionalized pandering to political dogmas will not be able to continue without creating a bankrupt city and society. Paying loyalty to other interests will not accomplish our goals. And taking the unthought-of plan presented by candidates who get their ideas from the same source will not accomplish our goals. Independent thinking is a necessity for our cities struggles to become reality. The collective institutionalism has weakened our resolve. The collective institutionalism of yesterday was a necessity but has grown to becoming a group of termites and thus the collective institutionalism has weakened our house. Maybe in another later election the institutions might be able to have a voice but at the current erosion of political collectivism it is weakening our resolve for achievement. Our beauty as a city must be preserved and the only one to elect is Elizabeth Campbell. Once again, we, as a City need someone who has the vision to see where reality starts and bureaucracy ends. Vote for Elizabeth Campbell for Mayor.

The basic fundamentals for a Great Mayor are with Elizabeth Campbell. With an education background in Criminal Law and Justice and a recent background in Public Administration. Her other business skills and accomplishments of building nursing homes would require organization and timeliness of administration, negotiation, bureaucratic labyrinth maneuvering, meeting a payroll accomplishments and preservation of financing.

Vote for Elizabeth Campbell for Mayor.

R-71Pastors/Church Guide

The way to use the below until I can change it is the first yes/no refers to Churches and the second yes/no refers to Pastors.  This reflects how someone can or cannot relate to R-71 in a Church or Pastor environment.

See also www.ProtectMarriageWA.com or R-71 for the bill information.

 

CIVIC PARTICIPATION GUIDELINES FOR PASTORS AND CHURCHES
By Mathew D. Staver, Esq.
SUPPORTING OR OPPOSING CANDIDATES CHURCH PASTOR
Endorsing or opposing political candidates No Yes
Contributions to political candidate No Yes
In-kind and independent expenditures for or against political candidates No Yes
Contributions to Political Action Committees No Yes
Appearance of political candidate at church meeting or service Yes N/A
Introduction of political candidates at church Yes Yes
Political candidate to preach or read scripture (contributions should not be solicited & message
should not urge people to vote for the candidate) Yes N/A
Voter registration programs and campaigns (non-partisan) Yes Yes
Distribution of candidate surveys and incumbent voting records (avoid editorial opinions) Yes Yes
Distribution in church parking lot of political statements and opinions on political issues (so
long as no church endorsement) Yes N/A
Rent or loan church mailing lists to political candidates (list must be made available to all
candidates on similar terms and prices) Yes N/A
Church bulletin political ads at regular price and news stories Yes N/A
Church bulletin editorial where the pastor or staff member endorses or opposes a candidate No No
Church bulletin editorial regarding political issues or two different church members take
opposing views on a candidate Yes N/A
Use of church facilities by political candidates (if all other candidates are allowed or invited) Yes N/A
Fund-raising for candidates No Yes
Campaigning for candidates No Yes
Educate members of the public about viewpoints of candidates Yes Yes
Discuss church doctrine pertaining to candidate views such as abortion Yes Yes
Granting use of name to support a political candidate No* Yes*
Support or oppose judicial, department or cabinet appointments Yes Yes
Support or oppose judicial candidates No Yes
Support or oppose other political appointments of non-elected officials Yes Yes
SUPPORTING OR OPPOSING LEGISLATION CHURCH PASTOR
Use of church facilities by lobbying groups to discuss social issues Yes N/A
Rent or loan church mailing list to lobbying groups Yes N/A
Preach sermons on social issues and political issues and activism Yes Yes
Educate on political process and political/social/legislative issues Yes Yes
Petition drives supporting or opposing legislation Yes Yes
Support or oppose legislation unrelated to the church organization Yes** Yes
Support or oppose legislation that directly relates to the organization Yes*** Yes
Encourage members to voice their opinions in favor or in opposition to certain legislation Yes** Yes
Lobby candidates to support or oppose legislation Yes** Yes
Distribute position papers supporting or opposing legislation Yes** Yes
*A pastor may include title and church affiliation in a personal endorsement along with the following notation: “Title and
affiliation for identification purposes.”
**Churches and other 501(c)3 organizations may support or oppose legislation so long as such activity comprises an
insubstantial part of the overall operation. A 501(c)4 organization may support or oppose legislation without any limitations.
***A church or any other 501(c)3 organization may without limitation support or oppose legislation that directly affects the
organizational structure and operation of the organization. For example, a church may without limitation oppose legislation
attempting to repeal the tax-exempt status of the church.
Copyright © 2000-2004. Resource: Liberty Counsel:

CFA and Investment company moving to Seattle

CFA Seattle Chapter

Was informed by Seattle Mayor candidate, Elizabeth Campbell, that from the Seattle Times reporter the Current Seattle Mayor Nickells wants to pay Russell Investments from Tacoma to relocate to Seattle. The amount of $250,000 was mentioned. Time frame for this value of money was not indicated.

 I am an Enrolled Agent and also have a dormant CFP (due to not being able yet to get around to paying the yearly dues). I prepare income tax returns in Lynnwood, Washington. I did notice the CPE education framework which you have available and I should be taking advantage of this.

Anyways…

Elizabeth Campbell disagrees with the Mayor in giving $250,000 to Russell Investments. She believes that if they would like to move to Seattle they can.

She believes that reducing the cost of operations of government and not increasing them should be the objective of government.

In Seattle, employing the current domestic citizens and other legal immigrants should be the objective of a government. By making things more civilized for the current legal citizenry and residents she believes we can make an environment more conducive to other companies then deciding to move or to make their home base of operations inside of the City of Seattle. The incentives for one company to come to Seattle do not outways the needs and desires of the current residents and citizens.

Knowing that your membership for the Seattle Chapter is 600 members and your base of operations is in Seattle I would agree with Russell Investments that the Pacific Northwest’s financial infrastructure is indeed centered in Seattle and not centered in Tacoma. I believe that Russell Investments should relocate and would relocate on their own free will to Seattle if the cities infrastructure is better than Tacoma’s.

You, the CFA Society of Seattle, I believe, have worked hard and diligently to create a locate certified financial advisors community and society which rivals other national societies. I have also thus noticed that Tacoma does not have by itself a CFA society.

Please inform us if this is not incorrect.

 Are there any members in your chapter who are from Tacoma as well. What is the number of CFA members that work for Russell Investments. Is Russell Investments dislocated from the other society members and thus the strength in professional correspondence is not as readily available.

 I also noted that one of your former Presidents had $2 Billion in Assets under management and this could directly compete with potential employees and capital acquisitions from investors.

Again, Elizabeth Campbell believes that making a government more streamlined and an infrastructure more conducive to the citizenries needs as a whole is the correct and best way to achieve everyones goals and desires. An artificial catapult for one company could weaken the current accomplishments of the current citizens and residents.

I personally believe that this move from Tacoma to Seattle will only be an even swap of $s for all concerned and would not have any Economic Stimulus impact.  The definite non-gainer of economic activity would be the Port of Seattle.  From Tacoma and from Seattle the airfare travel will be equal.  No stimulus here.  The only advantage might be in Seattle’s use of the RTA train from Sea-Tac to downtown Seattle.  The use of Seattle’s downtown conference and hotel community would have an impact.  Seattle would be a better financial climate for Russell Investments but what would we get for $250,000 in exchange.  They probably would come here anyways.

 Please advise,

 Keith Ljunghammar, EA

 Elizabeth Campbell 4 Mayor, Treasurer

At the Seattle Union Temple last night, June 2, 2009, Elizabeth Campbell was the only one to really give her opinion on changing the character of the Seattle Mayor’s position. They all talked about building up transit and that transit is “the only method of transportation”. Whereas Elizabeth Campbell expressed her opinion and stated that all citizens cannot and should not have to rely on Transit. Multiple jobs or multiple excursions are necessary for some individuals and transit really cannot get you from Greenwood to Columbia City in an economical amount of time. There is transit from and to these points but it is a long drive. At least one Seattle Mayor candidate understands this basic of human concepts. Mr. Donaldson stated that he was head and shoulders above the rest of the candidates but I would say that if you have the same ideas as the rest At the Seattle Union Temple last night, June 2, 2009, Elizabeth Campbell was the only one to really give her opinion on changing the character of the Seattle Mayor’s position. They all talked about building up transit and that transit is “the only method of transportation”. Whereas Elizabeth Campbell expressed her opinion and stated that all citizens cannot and should not have to rely on Transit. Multiple jobs or multiple excursions are necessary for some individuals and transit really cannot get you from Greenwood to Columbia City in an economical amount of time. There is transit from and to these points but it is a long drive. At least one Seattle Mayor candidate understands this basic of human concepts. Mr. Donaldson stated that he was head and shoulders above the rest of the candidates but I would say that if you have the same ideas as the rest of the candidates then this is like being at center court and everyone is in a circle. Yes, Mr. Donaldson could be in the center of the circle passing the basketball back and forth on each try but Elizabeth Campbell would have a separate basketball and would continually be the only one making baskets for the team, the citizens of the City of Seattle. of the candidates then this is like being at center court and everyone is in a circle. Yes, Mr. Donaldson could be in the center of the circle passing the basketball back and forth on each try but Elizabeth Campbell would have a separate basketball and would continually be the only one making baskets for the team, the citizens of the City of Seattle.

If you want strength and creativity, Elizabeth Campbell was expressive and distinct in her conveyances and spoke critically as a mayoral candidate should be. 

What is next on her plate will indeed be a delight to her fellow citizens.  Her frankness is a delight and a relief from the non-thinking of the current mayor.  No more platitudes from institutional contributors.  She will be a treat.

Elizabeth Campbell for Seattle Mayor

Elizabeth Campbell will be starting her campaigning for Seattle Mayor.  www.Elizabeth4Mayor.  Catching email address.

She will be starting at the Seattle Union Hall Temple at 7:00 p.m. tonight.  This is Tuesday, June 2, 2009.  Be there.

Will she announce her broader platform.  What about sanctuary cities.

END

Unconstitutional – VOTEing Rights

Unconstitutional – VOTEing rights.

The way I am reading the Constitution I do not see why EX-Convicts cannot vote right away. Do I agree with this. No. But it is the way the U.S. Constitution reads. Please advise if I am wrong.

Article XIV, Section 1.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United State and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Article XV, Section 1.

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Previous condition of servitude here means incarcerated. See Article XIII Section 1. I would interpret this to mean while in the slammer and also under house arrest and also while under parole.

Article XXIV, Section 1

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the Untied States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

My question on this is the questioning of what a tax is. If a tax is someone having to pay restitution then having to pay restitution prior to having your voting rights restored would be unconstitutional by definition.

Article XIII, Section 1.

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly conviced, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to its jurisdiction.

This define what involuntary servitude is supposed to mean in todays terms since it was more extension back in the writting of the Constitution.

So for my conclusion. I have the definition as from the Constitution as to how long the condition of servitude is supposed to last which is until the end of parole. Article XV, Section 1 also limits restrictions on voting to not be denied because of previous condition of servitude.

If one would complain about this then in the States the condition of restitution can still be maintained but a different and separate role for voting of U.S. candidates must be upheld. If “other tax” is not interpreted as from above then this condition must be changed because it directly includes States in the requirement of conditions.

Is this just politics or what.  Is this a sign of the times to reject the Constitution of is this country acting like a Democracy and not like a Republic which it is “guaranteed” to act like as per the Constitution. 

Or is the only solution to Impeach the President so this can be enforced by the next President.   A softer approach would be for the Attorney General of the U.S. and the several States to enforce this provision by demanding the President and respective Governors to call the Congress or Legislature back to enforce this provision in the Constitution.  The President could enforce this without the Legislatures by the State Executive changing the provision.  But it would be less of a headache if the Legislatures are called back into session. 

See also I-1043

END

 

Unconstitutional – Illegal Immigration

Unconstitutional – Illegal Immigration

Look at the following Constitutional Articles and Sections. See the wording at the bottom.

Will make an explanation after each one of the Articles or Sections.

1) Article IV, Section 4.

Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.

This can be a little bit tricky sometimes in its interpretation. For the meaning of a Republican Form of Government this would essentially mean that no State government could transform its government style to a Democratic, Socialist, or Communistic, or Fascist Form of government or other no conceived of at the time of the forming of the Republic. This in my intepretation means that Jodge Sotomayer cannot be elected because this would be interferring in this interpretation. But another way of reading this is that the U.S Government has to be a Republican in form type of Governement. It could also mean that the U.S. Govenment will come in an force a State to revert back to a Republican Form of Government. No special interest or Nobilities can be created. No Democrat style of government can be created. Voting must be guaranteed.

All states must be protected from Invasion from without the Countries borders and from within. If a disturbance would come from another State then the federal government would step in to settle the disagreement. If an Invasion would come from the Federal Borders then the Federal Government would have to come in to stop the problem.

This would also mean that if the Legislature of the Executive branches of government could not convene then the Federal Government would step in and take over to get the State government back to a Republican Form of Government.

2) Article VI

… both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to Support this Constitution…

This part of the Constitution does not seem to be working at this time. To protect the Constitution of Article IV, Section 4. Well, I do see Invasion from outside forces at this time. If we have 850,000 illegal immigrants with 500,000 staying each year then this is an Invasion. The federal government needs to be stepping in and squelching this Invasion.

3) Article I, Section 8.

… to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States…

Each State has its own Militia. The States could provide its own Defence if the Federal Government does not step in to do this. Overpowering and setting up Habeas Corpes could be instituted to round-up all of the illegal immigrants.

4) To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on th esubject of Bankrupties throughout the United States.

The establishment of a uniform Rule of Naturalization has been established. But we need enforcement of these rules as well. This is where the federal government is lacking in is enforcement. This is really the job of the Executive Branch.

5) To provide for calling for the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions:

This would be just a wording of what was being stated above and who has the responsibility to do the enforcement.

6) The Privilege of Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Casees of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

Evidently we have had a need for Writ of Habeas Corpus suspension 500,000 per year for each of the last dozen years and more to get the borders guarded.

7) Article II, Section 1.

…will to the best of my Ability, preserve protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

If the President is not Defending the Constitution then he should be Impeached so someone that wants to defend the Constitution will be the President. Unfortunately this illegal immigrant mismanagement goes along ways. But at least let’s start to enforce this provision now.

My conclusions on this are that the U.S. Constitution has been badly hammered and is waiting for someone or some President to enforce the Constitution. The problem of illegal immigration is not just a casual affair. The strong wording of GUARANTEE is not just a warrantee but a GUARANTEE. The gentlemen farmer who was on the U.S./Mexican border was not being GUARANTEED his property rights because the U.S. Government was not GUARANTEEing the Constitution are required by the Constitution. Perhaps on the border there is a different Constitution?

See also I-1043 RespectWashington.us

 

END