Back to Top

Category Archives: federal

Temporary Restraining Order Against BATFE – Ares Armor

Temporary Restraining Order Against BATFE – Ares Armor.

Temporary Restraining Order Against BATFE

Temporary Restraining Order Against BATFE

Published: 03/12/2014 03:54:44 PM

 

 

Lycurgan, Inc. Ares Armor

208 N Freeman St

Oceanside, CA 92054

TO: Whom It May Concern

FROM: Dimitrios Karras, CEO Ares Armor

SUBJ: Temporary Restraining Order Against BATFE

DATE: March 12, 2014

Sir or Ma’am,

Last week the BATFE Raided EP Armory based on a determination letter that had deemed the 80% Polymer product to be a firearm.  The determination letter that the BATFE used to obtain warrants against EP Armory is based on incorrect information about the manufacturing process.  The BATFE has been notified of their error and the incorrectness of their determination based on this error.

This week on Monday, March 10th the BATFE threatened to raid us even though they are fully aware that their determination letter is factually incorrect. They requested that we turn over a list of every customer that had purchased a polymer lower from us and turn over the remaining inventory that we have.

Our customer’s privacy is of the utmost importance to us. I cannot in good moral conscience turn over a list of names to the BATFE just because they unduly threaten us with an unjust raid based on information they KNOW TO BE FALSE!

For the time we are SAFE! We were granted a Temporary Restraining Order against the BATFE on March 11th. The following is the declaration that I made during the process of obtaining this TRO:


Declaration of Dimitrios Karras, CEO Ares Armor

In regards to the events surrounding Ares Armor’s interaction with EP Armory’s products and the threats made towards Ares Armor by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATFE.) The following declarations are true and correct to the best of my knowledge.

I, Dimitrios Karras, state:

1. During a meeting with the BATFE around the end of 2012 that was unrelated to EP Armory’s product, the Agent that was present very strongly requested that I turn over Ares Armor’s customer list. He intimidated me with the possibility of criminal charges if he was not satisfied. This was the first attempt the BATFE made to intimidate Ares Armor into turning over private customer information.

2. An 80% lower is an industry term for an unfinished receiver that is not considered to be a firearm.

3. EP Armory manufactures an 80% lower receiver made from polymer.

4. Ares Armor purchases and then resells many products one of which is the 80% Polymer Lowers that are made by EP Armory.

5. In the regular course of business I have seen many different 80% http://thebonfiremedia.com/tag/ar/” title=”View all articles about AR here”>AR-15 receivers.

6. EP Armory’s product is no different than standard 80% receivers that are sold openly and that the BATFE has consistently determined to not be a firearm. EP Armory’s product is in compliance with previous BATFE Determinations and is not a firearm.

7. The BATFE has Raided EP Armory based on incorrect information about EP Armory’s manufacturing process. The determination letter written by the BATFE incorrectly classified the EP Armory product as a firearm based on faulty information. The BATFE was under the impression that EP Armory was making a firearm and then reverting back to the 80% stage by filling in the fire-control cavity. At no point during the manufacturing process by EP Armory is a weapon made and then reverted. The solid fire-control cavity is built first and the rest of the 80% casting is made around this “core” specifically so that their product at no time could be considered to be a firearm.

a. As can be seen in Exhibit 1-3. The BATFE has consistently determined that the machining operations that cannot be performed in order to not be considered a firearm are as follows:

1. Milling out of fire-control cavity.

2. Selector-lever hole drilled.

3. Cutting of trigger slot.

4. Drilling of trigger pin hole.

5. Drilling of hammer pin hole.

b. EP Armory’s product is consistent with the BATFE’s many previous determinations.
c. At no time during EP Armory’s manufacturing process are any of the aforementioned 5 operations in a state that could cause a reasonable person to believe that EP Armory’s product would be considered a firearm.

8. The BATFE has been appropriately informed of their mistake. However, even though they have no determination that is based on fact, they are knowingly using their fiction based determination to intimidate Ares Armor with threats in order to inappropriately gain access to information that is private and should be protected.

9. I received communication on or about 3/10/2014 from our legal counsel (Jason Davis) that the BATFE was in the process of obtaining a warrant against Ares Armor based on their incorrect determination of EP Armory’s Product. I was advised that the BATFE had offered to forego obtaining a warrant if Ares Armor was willing to:

a. Hand over all of EP Armory’s 80% Lowers.
b. Turn over Ares Armor customer’s private information to the BATFE.

In exchange for turning over our customer’s private information the BATFE said that they would not “raid” Ares Armor’s facilities and would not pursue “criminal” charges. This made me feel as if I was being extorted. I agreed to their terms in order to delay an impending and unjust raid against Ares Armor long enough to obtain legal protection under the law.

10. I have been unjustly threatened with raids and criminal charges in an attempt by the BATFE to obtain information that is private and protected. The BATFE has expressed interest in obtaining Ares Armor’s customer list in the past and is now attempting to strong-arm us with undue threats based on information they know to be incorrect.

11. I am now in constant fear for the safety of my employees, my customers and myself.

Executed March 10, 2014 Oceanside, CA

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Dimitrios Karras


Sincerely,

Dimitrios Karras, CEO Ares Armor

View Timeline of Events (New Window)

View Document (New Window)

 

Posted in Government, crime, Democrat, federal, gun laws| Tagged , , , |

Nancy Pelosi still an AssWagon

Nancy Pelosi still insists that Obamacare will improve the lives of average Americans, despite over 20 reports indicating otherwise.

“Because of the law, in the coming months Americans will have expanded choices and more affordable care.” Pelosi said at a recent Capitol Hill briefing. “We will be enhancing patients’ rights, putting money back in the pockets of consumers, reducing costs and strengthening the economic, financial, and health security of working families.”

She goes further to say that Obamacare will even lower the nation’s debt.

“The Affordable Care Act is bringing the cost of health care in our country down in both the public and private sector,” said Pelosi. “And that is what is largely responsible for the deficit coming down.”

But what she doesn’t realize is that her numbers are flawed.

“Despite promises that the law will lower costs, [Obamacare] will in fact cause the premiums of many Americans to spike substantially,” a report released by the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce concluded. “The broken promises are numerous, and the data reveals that many Americans, from recent college graduates to older adults, will not be able to afford the law’s higher costs.”

The report is based on responses from 17 insurance companies to a letter from Congress asking them to estimate the effects Obamacare would have on premiums and found that individuals in about 90% of all states would likely face “significant premium increases.”

Furthermore, the committee found that some individuals may see premium increases up to 413%.

Editor’s Note: How much extra will you have to pay? To see how much Obamacare will take from your paycheck next year, go here.

On top of higher premiums, Obamacare will create no fewer than twenty new taxes or tax hikes on the American people.

Most of the new taxes go into effect January 1, 2014, but they are already infuriating millions of Americans.

The Obama administration has even given the IRS an extra $500 million to enforce the rules and regulations of Obamacare.

The new taxes don’t bode well for middle-class Americans. Incomes for the rich have soared this decade but middle class workers have seen their wages stagnate and even drop since the 2008 Great Recession.

Many fear Obamacare with its high insurance costs and new taxes, could provide the middle class a fatal blow.

Of course, the Obamacare plan was primarily designed to decrease the number of uninsured Americans and reduce healthcare costs.

Experts are saying it will have the exact opposite effect. In fact, it’s estimated that Obamacare will cost the average taxpayer nearly $6,000 in extra taxes as early as next year.

A McKinsey report now estimates Obamacare will cost taxpayers at least an additional $400 billion more than originally proposed.

And another study done by the Congressional Budget Office estimates that Obamacare won’t actually expand coverage and that the number of uninsured under Obamacare won’t ever fall below 30 million.

Perhaps worse than anything, is that millions of Americans will now lose their full-time jobs.

That’s a big reason why close to two-thirds of the country do not approve of Obamacare, according to recent polls.

Many are still furious over how the Democratically-controlled Congress passed this bill, which many scholars deem unconstitutional.

“Bipartisanship is a two-way street,” Pelosi said before Congress voted on the law. “A bill can be bipartisan without bipartisan votes…We have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it.”

If Congress had read the bill before passing it they should have noticed one section of the law that says you could get slapped with a $2,000 fine for not having health insurance – even if you do actually have it.

Or another section that says that under Obamacare ordinary Americans will get stuck paying for substance abuse coverage even if they never touched a drink or drug in their life.

Can the U.S. government really put you in jail for not buying health insurance?Go here to see the shocking story.

With the implementation of Obamacare quickly approaching, millions of Americans are asking what they can do to prepare for all the new costs and rules.

One expert, Betsy McCaughey, former Lieutenant Governor of New York and constitutional scholar with a Ph.D. from Columbia University, recently wrote a best-selling book showing Americans how they can survive Obamacare.

McCaughey is one of the only people in the country — including members of Congress – who has actually read the entire 2,572 page law.

Her book, titled Beating Obamacare: Your Handbook for Surviving the New Health Care Lawbreaks down the complicated bill into 168 pages of actionable advice.

The book, written in an easy going, easy to read style, examines the implications of Obamacare not seen in the mainstream press.

“Section 1501 of Obamacare requires nearly everyone to enroll in a one-size fits all, government-designed health insurance plan. For the first time in history, this law empowers the federal government to control how doctors treat privately insured patients,” McCaughey writes. “So even if you have your own private health plan that you paid for yourself, the government will have say over your care.”

She says that higher costs are only one negative of Obamacare. Doctors, nurses and other hospital employees will suffer from the government’s interference in healthcare. This will trickle down to poorer patient care.

What’s more, one third of all U.S. employers could stop offering health insurance to their workers, says McCaughey.

In fact, corporations including GE, IBM, and Time Warner have already said they will stop providing insurance for hundreds of thousands of employees.

McCaughey also exposes several sections of the bill that empower Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius to dictate what doctors can and cannot do.

“Section 4104(a), empowers Sebelius to reduce preventive services for seniors based on the recommendations of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force,” McCaughey notes. “This is the panel that said women ages forty to forty-nine and older than seventy-four should no longer get routine mammograms.”

And according to McCaughey’s research, senior citizens will get hit the hardest from Obamacare. “If you’re a senior or a baby boomer, expect less care than in the past,” she says. “Hip and knee replacements and cataract surgery will be especially hard to get from Medicare in the months ahead.”

She warns seniors to get some of those types of procedures done now before Obamacare goes into full effect, as Obamacare awards bonus points to hospitals that spend the least on seniors.

Lastly, many will find it difficult to keep their medical records private, according to McCaughey.

“The law will compel Americans to share with millions of strangers who are not physicians confidential private and personal medical history information they do not wish to share”

Editor’s Note: Real facts and figures about the hidden Obamacare taxes and fees and how they will affect everyday Americans and seniors are hard to find. As a courtesy, Money Morning is giving readers a free copy of Betsy McCaughey’s new book Beating Obamacare: Your Handbook for Surviving The New Health Care Law. But only a limited number of copies are available. Please go here to reserve yours today.

Kerry Says World Leaders Mocked Him

Kerry Says World Leaders Mocked Him Over Shutdown

Im sure it’s not over the shutdown John it’s that they’ve seen The Addams Family and their making jokes behind your back or to your face as i would. 

download (2)images (3) 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just how bad was the shutdown for America’s image on the world stage? So bad, says Secretary of State John Kerry, that foreign officials joked about buying him meals.

“I have seen how our allies, our partners and those who wish to challenge us or to do us harm are all sizing us up every day,” Kerry said at an event hosted by Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank. “What we do in Washington matters deeply…that’s why a self-inflicted wound like the shutdown can never happen again.”

Kerry added that the shutdown delayed security aid to Israel. “The dysfunction and the shutdown and the simplistic dialogue that came with it didn’t impress anyone,” he said.

The federal government was mostly shuttered for 16 days after House Republicans refused to sign off on a budget unless it stripped away funding for President Obama’s health care law. The impasse was condemned repeatedly by the Democratic leaders and progressive policymakers at the conference.

“I do love this country, damnit, and this country is in deep trouble,” declared former Vice President Al Gore. “What happened down there on Capitol Hill was pathetic.”

The shutdown sent the GOP’s approval ratings spiraling downward, leading some Democrats to think they might be able to take over the House in the 2014 mid-term election. “If they stay on course Democrats have a good chance,” said Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, a former congressman who led the Democratic Party’s House campaign committee. “If they reverse course than it’s a district by district scenario.

Gerrymandering by GOP-led state legislatures, however, have left few competitive seats. “This is a map that the Republicans designed nationwide,” Emanuel said. “If you want to win it back, you have to pick the lock nationwide.”

#obmamcare Putting the Brakes on Unreasonable Health Insurance Rate Increases NOT!

Who in the government is going to put the brakes on Obamacare’s
Unreasonable Insurance Rate

Learn about…
New Consumer Protections Under the Affordable
Care Act
Putting the Brakes on Unreasonable Health
Insurance Rate Increases

A new Rate Review program requires that when an insurer proposes to increase your insurance rate by 10% or more, this increase must be disclosed and justified to the public and thoroughly reviewed by State
or Federal regulators.  the Federal government will conduct the review. The review findings will be made public on www.HealthCare.gov for all reviews.

i looked but could not find the info they say is on the website i guess its just another glitch.

no need to read on it’s all gov BS from here

Read more below and at www.healthcare.gov
How does the “Rate Review”
program discourage unreasonable
rate increases?
The Rate Review program discourages
rate hikes by ensuring that proposed
increases of 10% or more get close
scrutiny from the public and State or
Federal regulators. Starting on
September 1, 2011, if your insurer
proposes a rate hike of this size, it must
give your State insurance regulator and
the Federal government:
• Advance notice of the proposed
rate;
• An explanation of why it believes
the rate hike is necessary; and
• Additional information about its
business, such as:
o The number and size of
benefit claims it has paid;
o Its history of premium
increases; and
o Its projected medical and
administrative costs.

You’ll be able to review this information
on your State insurance regulator’s
public website and on
www.HealthCare.gov, a public website
for consumers. You’ll also have an
opportunity to

Does the Rate Review program apply
to my health insurance policy?
The law applies to all health insurers
who sell policies to individuals and small
businesses, but not to large employer
group plans and “self-insured plans.”
Also, if your health insurance policy or
plan existed on March 23, 2010, it may
be considered a “grandfathered health
plan.” Grandfathered health plans are
exempt from the Rate Review
requirements.
Consumer Tip: If you’re not sure
whether the Rate Review program
applies to your health insurance plan,
you can check with your employer or
insurer. Your State may also have a
Consumer Assistance Program that can
help. Find out more at
www.HealthCare.gov/consumerhelp.
What size rate increase requires
review?
For rate increases proposed on or after
September 1, 2011, States (or, in some
cases, the Federal government) will
review average rate increases of 10% or
higher to see if they are unreasonable.
An average 10 % increase means that
some enrollees may experience rate
increases higher or lower than 10%.
Starting September 1, 2012, the 10%
threshold may change for some States,
based on State trends in health
insurance premiums and health care
costs. Many states review all proposed
increases, regardless of the size.
Who reviews the proposed rate
increase?
States conduct the reviews, if their
review process meets national
standards for effectiveness. If a State
lacks the resources or authority to do an
effective review, the Federal
government will conduct the review.
The review findings will be made public
on www.HealthCare.gov for all reviews.
You can find out whether your state is
conducting the reviews or the federal
government on HealthCare.gov.
What makes a rate increase
“unreasonable”?
A Rate Review program could find that a
premium hike is unreasonable if, for
example, the premium hike:
• Makes the health benefits a poor
value for the money;
• Is based on faulty assumptions or
incomplete information; or
• Charges different prices to
people who pose similar cost
risks to the insurer.
What happens if the rate increase is
found to be unreasonable?
The Federal government will post that
finding on HealthCare.gov.
If your insurer decides to increase rates
that are found to be unreasonable, it
must post both its explanation for the
rate increase and the findings of the
Rate Review program on its website for
three years. The Federal government

Abortion Practitioners Played Catch With Bodies of Babies Killed in Abortion | LifeNews.com

More fun for #teamwendy “games of toss with aborted babies”

Abortion providers see the bodies of aborted babies daily. They deal with the grief and heartache of seeing women through what is almost always a difficult and painful experience. Sometimes the stress of what they are doing comes out in disturbing ways. According to Father Frank Pavone from Priests for Life:

Former workers in the abortion industry have told us stories about playing games of toss with aborted babies in the hallway. Your mind has to invert what is going on: to make it a game, a joke, something positive. It’s the only way to keep from going crazy — and some of them do.

When I read this, it reminded me of another quote I ran across in a book by Rachel MacNair, who was known for working with Feminists for Life. MacNair’s book, Perpetration-Induced Traumatic Stress: The Psychological Consequences of Killing, discusses the emotional problems that plague those who kill. It discusses the pressures faced by soldiers in wartime as well as those affecting abortion clinic workers who kill babies on a regular basis. She cites studies that show that alcoholism, suicidal depression, and other emotional problems plague clinic workers and doctors who perform abortions.

One reaction is to act out. A clinic worker told MacNair:

The one thing that sticks out in my mind the most, that really upset me the most, was that he [the abortionist] had done an abortion, he had a fetus wrapped inside of a blue paper. He stuck it inside of a surgical glove and put another glove over it. He was standing in the hall, speaking with myself and two of his assistants. He was tossing the fetus up in the air and catching it. Like it was a rubber ball. I just looked at him and it’s like doctor, please. And he laughed. He says, “Nobody knows what this is.” (1)

Abby Johnson described how clinic workers called the freezer that held the bodies of aborted children “the nursery.” She talks about how clinic workers joked about giving baby-shaped cookies with blood-red icing to the protesters outside. What happens to the soul of a person who becomes this hardened? It is a truly twisted perspective.

1. Rachel M. Macnair, Perpetration-Induced Traumatic Stress: The Psychological Consequences of Killing. (Westport, CT: Praeger, 2002)

LifeNews.com Note: Sarah Terzo is a pro-life liberal who runs ClinicQuotes.com, a web site devoted to exposing the abortion industry. She is a member of the pro-life groups PLAGAL and Secular Pro-Life. This originally appeared at Live Action News.

via Abortion Practitioners Played Catch With Bodies of Babies Killed in Abortion | LifeNews.com.

Guide to the Nov. 5 TX Constitutional Amendments Election

Why was this so hard to find?

FREE: A Voter’s Guide to the Nov. 5 TX Constitutional Amendments Election

Published October 21, 2013 7:50am by Sentinel Staff

 

 

 

The following Voters Guide, which presents the nine proposed Texas Constitutional Amendments on the Nov. 5, ballot, is funded and published by the League of Women Voters of Texas Education Fund.

 

For more than 90 years, helping voters cast an informed vote when they go to the polls has been the primary goal of the League of Women Voters.

 

As an organization that encourages informed and active participation in government, the League believes that all of us are stakeholders in Making Democracy Work. Neither the League nor the Education Fund supports or opposes any political party or candidate.

 

This guide states the official ballot language for each proposed constitutional amendment, followed by an explanation of the amendment, the arguments for and the arguments against.

 

The propositions were researched by trustees of the League of Women Voters of Texas Education Fund, who reviewed the legislative history and contacted persons and organizations who have supported and opposed the proposed amendments. See the Constitutional Amendments page at www.lwvtexas.org for links to the legislative history and the list of witnesses for and against each of the proposed amendments.

 

Check the League’s website for other helpful information about elections, voting and issues: www.lwvtexas.org.

 

Proposition 1

Official Ballot Language: The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to provide for an exemption from ad valorem taxation of all or part of the market value of the residence homestead of the surviving spouse of a member of the armed services of the United States who is killed in action.

Explanation

The proposed amendment would allow the surviving spouse of a member of the U.S. armed services who was killed in action to be exempt from paying local property taxes based on all or part of the total appraised value of the homestead. This proposed amendment follows prior amendments that have passed, granting property tax exemptions to veterans who are 100% disabled and their surviving spouses.

Under Proposition 1 and its enabling bill SB 163, a surviving spouse is eligible if he or she has not remarried since the death of the spouse who served in the armed forces and if the qualifying homestead was the residence of the spouse at the time of death. Upon remarriage, the surviving spouse would lose the property tax exemption. The surviving spouse would be able to transfer the exemption to a new homestead, but it would be limited to the dollar amount of the prior homestead exemption.

Arguments For

• The proposed amendment would allow local governments in Texas to assist surviving spouses of U.S. armed services members who have been killed in action by providing valuable relief during such a difficult time. Surviving spouses who qualify would be able to save money on property taxes and could use this money elsewhere.

• Surviving spouses would be able to transfer the exemption to a new residence if the surviving spouse chose to move within the state.

Arguments Against

• School districts would receive less revenue from property taxes so the state would have to cover the reduction by pulling from state general revenue, creating a cost to the state.

• Local governments would lose revenue, especially in cities and towns where military families largely populate the area. This would result in a projected yearly loss of up to $84,000 from counties, $93,000 from cities, and $45,000 from school districts by 2018 (SB 163 Fiscal Note). An increase in the number of people who receive property tax exemptions might require local governments to increase taxes for other taxpayers.

 

—–

Proposition 2

Official Ballot Language: The constitutional amendment eliminating an obsolete requirement for a State Medical Education Board and a State Medical Education Fund, neither of which is operational.

Explanation

In 1952, voters amended the constitution to direct the Texas Legislature to create the State Medical Education Board (SMEB) and a scholarship fund to issue loans to medical students who agreed to practice in rural areas of Texas. In 1973, the Legislature created the SMEB. In 1987, the Legislative Budget Board reported that only 11 percent of loan recipients since 1973 were practicing in rural Texas counties, and only 14 percent of those were in medically underserved areas. No new loans have been issued since January 1988.

In 1989, after a recommendation by the Sunset Advisory Commission, the Legislature attached the SMEB to the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB). All existing loans have been serviced or turned over to the attorney general for default collection. Loan repayment programs are now used instead of direct loans to medical students to attract physicians to practice in rural Texas.

The proposed constitutional amendment, and its enabling bill HB 1061, would remove references to these defunct entities in the constitution and state law.

Arguments For

• Since the SMEB and its education fund are no longer operational, references to them should be removed from the state’s unwieldy constitution.

Arguments Against

• The SMEB and its education fund are obsolete and no loans have been issued since 1988, so a constitutional amendment to remove references to them is unnecessary.

 

—–

Proposition 3

Official Ballot Language: The constitutional amendment to authorize a political subdivision of this state to extend the number of days that aircraft parts that are exempt from ad valorem taxation due to their location in this state for a temporary period may be located in this state for purposes of qualifying for the tax exemption.

Explanation

Currently, in order to promote economic development in the state, the Texas Constitution allows local taxing authorities to exempt from ad valorem taxation property that is in Texas temporarily. This tax exemption is commonly referred to as a “freeport exemption.” Eligible property includes goods, wares, merchandise, other tangible property, and ores, other than oil, natural gas, and other petroleum products. To be eligible for the exemption, the property must be acquired in or imported into Texas for export; detained for assembly, storage, manufacturing, processing, or fabrication; and shipped out of Texas no later than 175 days after acquisition or importation.

Eligible property currently includes aircraft and aircraft parts used for maintenance or repairs by certified air carriers. The proposed amendment and its enabling bill HB 3121 authorize the governing body of a political subdivision that already grants a freeport exemption to extend, up to 730 days (two years) after acquisition or importation, the date when aircraft parts with an exemption have to be transported outside of the state. The extension would apply only to the political subdivision that grants it.

If passed, the amendment would take effect January 1, 2014, and apply only to a tax year that begins on or after that date.

Arguments For

• The proposed extension of the freeport exemption would provide an economic development tool designed to make Texas competitive in the aerospace industry that contributes billions to the state’s economy. Texas is one of only a few states with a tax on inventory. Since aerospace suppliers often require inventory to be onsite for much longer than 175 days, at least one aerospace company has moved its storage or operations to another state because of the inventory tax.

• Granting an extension would be totally at the option of each local government already granting an exemption.

• Loss of tax revenue to a school district that grants a freeport exemption may be offset by additional state aid, since the amount of the exemption is subtracted from the market value of inventory or property to determine the taxable value for the taxing authority. Any extra cost to the state could be offset by additional revenues from increased economic development and jobs.

Arguments Against

• Singling out one group for special tax exemption status raises issues of uniformity in taxation. If the extension is authorized for aircraft parts, similar industries that make specialized parts and have a high portion of idle inventory may seek similar extensions.

• Granting an extension reduces tax revenues for local governments.

• An increase in exemptions by school districts could result in higher costs to the state.

 

—–

Proposition 4

Official Ballot Language: The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to provide for an exemption from ad valorem taxation of part of the market value of the residence homestead of a partially disabled veteran or the surviving spouse of a partially disabled veteran if the residence homestead was donated to the disabled veteran by a charitable organization.

Explanation

Currently, the Texas Constitution provides that a 100 percent or totally disabled veteran, or the veteran’s surviving spouse, is entitled to an exemption from ad valorem taxation of the market value of the disabled veteran’s resident homestead, subject to certain restrictions.

This proposed amendment, and its enabling legislation HB 97, would provide a similar exemption to a partially disabled veteran or surviving spouse, if the homestead has been donated by a charitable organization at no cost to the veteran. The amount of the exemption would be a percentage of the market value of the residence homestead that is equal to the percentage of disability of the veteran. Proposition 4 would allow the legislature to provide additional eligibility requirements for the exemption, and would not affect whether a qualified disabled veteran was entitled to another exemption for veterans for which he or she may qualify. It also allows partially disabled veterans to be added to the list of individuals authorized to pay property taxes in installments as provided by current law.

Arguments For

• Texas charitable organizations have given homes to disabled veterans, but in some cases the veteran is unable to pay the property taxes, resulting in an unintended consequence of foreclosure. These veterans have sacrificed for our country and are deserving of help. The cost of the exemption is small because only a dozen or so homes per year are donated cost-free to disabled veterans.

• Partially disabled veterans who receive these homes are not likely to return to full employment and need help with their taxes.

Arguments Against

• Singling out one group for special tax exemption status, even though deserving, raises issues of uniformity in taxation and could open the door to continued erosion of the tax base.

• If the purpose of the bill is to help partially disabled veterans keep their homes while they are unable to pay property taxes, the exemption should not be permanent. It should expire when the veteran can afford to pay property taxes.

 

—–

Proposition 5

Official Ballot Language: The constitutional amendment to authorize the making of a reverse mortgage loan for the purchase of homestead property and to amend lender disclosures and other requirements in connection with a reverse mortgage loan.

Explanation

A “reverse mortgage for purchase” allows a senior aged 62 or older to purchase a new principal residence and obtain a reverse mortgage within a single transaction. Texas is the second largest market in the country for reverse mortgages, but the only state that does not offer the “reverse mortgage for purchase” because it is not authorized in the state constitution.

A reverse mortgage is a form of home equity loan that does not require a monthly payment. During the course of the loan, the debt increases with the addition of various costs such as interest, mortgage insurance premiums, and servicing fees, while the homeowner’s equity decreases. Repayment of the loan is deferred until the borrower dies, sells, or moves out of the residence. While reverse mortgages are a small market nationally, approximately 70,000 originated per year, it could grow dramatically in the decades ahead spurred by an aging baby boomer population.

Proposition 5 would enable Texas seniors to use “reverse mortgages for purchase” to acquire a new residence. It would also require reverse mortgage lenders to expand currently required counseling to borrowers to include disclosure of the specific behaviors that can lead to foreclosure on a property.

Arguments For

• This proposition saves costs for seniors by allowing a reverse mortgage loan to be set up as part of a purchase rather than after a purchase to eliminate duplicative processes.

• Using a “reverse mortgage for purchase,” the homeowner can occupy a new residence without making a single mortgage payment. This helps seniors relocate to other geographical areas or downsize to homes that better meet their needs.

• Reverse mortgage loans are typically easier to qualify for than traditional loans, which have income and credit score requirements to support the borrower’s ability to meet repayment commitments.

Arguments Against

• All reverse mortgages are complex financial products. Surveys have found that consumers struggle to understand and make good decisions even after required counseling.

• Homeowners can lose a lifetime of home equity as a result of fraud, scams, misleading advertising, aggressive sales tactics and discriminatory practices sometimes associated with reverse mortgages. This risk increases significantly when state regulation and enforcement are weak.

• As baby boomers consider the reverse mortgage market, their choices may put them at considerable risk at a time in their lives when making a financial recovery is unlikely.

 

—–

Proposition 6

Official Ballot Language: The constitutional amendment providing for the creation of the State Water Implementation Fund for Texas and the State Water Implementation Revenue Fund for Texas to assist in the financing of priority projects in the state water plan to ensure the availability of adequate water resources.

Explanation

The Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) develops a state water plan based on information from each of 16 regional water-planning groups. Existing state funding relies primarily on issuance of general obligation bonds, legislative appropriations, and federal grants that finance loans to local and regional water suppliers. In November 2011, voters approved a constitutional amendment that authorized the TWDB to issue additional general obligation bonds not to exceed $6 billion at any time.

Proposition 6 establishes two funds to finance water plan projects: the State Water Implementation Fund for Texas (SWIFT) and the State Water Implementation Revenue Fund for Texas (SWIRFT). The two funds would receive financial resources for water projects, including revenue authorized by the state legislature, investment earnings and interest, and proceeds from the sale of bonds. The two funds would be part of the state treasury but outside the general revenue fund, a constitutional requirement to give the legislature control over disbursements.

Under Proposition 6, TWDB would have the power to enter into bond enhancement agreements to make bonds more attractive to purchasers. If the legislature provides authorization and the Legislative Budget Board approves, TWDB would have the authority to issue bonds and related credit agreements and to make direct loans for water projects in the state water plan. Repayment of loans would provide a revolving cash flow for additional loans.

HB 1025 authorizes the transfer of $2 billion from the economic stabilization fund, commonly known as the Rainy Day Fund, if the amendment passes. Money in the fund would be available to provide support for low-interest loans, longer repayment terms for loans, incremental repurchase terms for projects in which the state owns an interest, and deferral of loan payments. The enabling legislation for the proposed amendment, HB 4, prescribes how the funds are to be invested and how they may be apportioned within the state water plan. At least 10 percent of funds would be applied to projects designed to serve rural areas and 20 percent for water conservation or reuse.

Arguments For

• Ensuring an adequate water supply is essential to the public and economic health of Texas. These two funds provide a sustainable mechanism for funding water development projects with an initial transfer of $2 billion from the Rainy Day Fund to seed a revolving cash flow for making loans for water projects.

• Responding to the current drought emergency is an appropriate use of the Rainy Day Fund and will provide a better return on investment than if the money were left in that fund.

• Without the necessary funding for priority projects in the state water plan, Texas stands to lose millions of jobs and suffer reduced economic activity and decreased tax revenues.

Arguments Against

• These two new funds are unnecessary as there is already available funding for water development projects administered by TWDB.

• While TWDB needs to proceed with priority projects, taking money from the Rainy Day Fund is inappropriate. Reducing the amount in this fund could reduce the state’s excellent credit rating and affect the state’s ability to respond to a natural disaster or other emergency situations. The legislature should make a separate appropriation from the general fund.

• The state should not take on the financing of water plan projects. Financing should be provided by those benefiting from the projects.

 

—–

Proposition 7

Official Ballot Language: The constitutional amendment authorizing a home-rule municipality to provide in its charter the procedure to fill a vacancy on its governing body for which the unexpired term is 12 months or less.

Explanation

Almost all Texas cities of more than 5,000 population have adopted a home rule or an independent city charter. A home rule city can pass any regulations or laws it deems necessary as long as they are consistent with the state constitution and statutes.

Section 11, Article XI of the Texas Constitution prohibits a city with terms of office between two and four years from filling vacancies by appointment. These cities must fill vacancies by majority vote during a special election held within 120 days after the start of the vacancy.

The proposed constitutional amendment and its enabling bill HB 1372 would authorize a home rule city to provide in its charter a procedure other than a special election to fill a vacancy in its governing body for which the unexpired term is 12 months or less.

Arguments For

• Proposition 7 would cut taxpayer costs. When an elected city official passes away or otherwise leaves office, the Constitution requires the city to hold a special election within 120 days even if only a few months remain in the term. Taxpayers pay thousands of dollars to hold special elections only a few months before a regular election.

• This proposition would provide parity in election regulations. Vacancies for elected city officials with terms of office of less than two years can be filled by appointment. This proposition would allow vacancies to be filled by the same process for all elected officials. It would preserve democratic accountability because cities would have to hold elections as usual after the expiration of an appointed official’s term.

Arguments Against

• Proposition 7 might increase the opportunity for corruption by allowing city officials to appoint one another.

• Voting and elections are the best way to ensure democratic accountability. The cost of special elections is a small price to pay to ensure accountability.

 

—–

Proposition 8

Official Ballot Language: The constitutional amendment repealing Section 7, Article IX, Texas Constitution, which relates to the creation of a hospital district in Hidalgo County.

Explanation

Proposition 8 would remove from the Texas Constitution a 1960 amendment that authorized the creation of a hospital district in Hidalgo County with a maximum tax rate of 10 cents per $100 valuation of taxable property. This limit is below all other counties in Texas, and no hospital district has been created in Hidalgo County. Repealing the 1960 amendment, which applies only to Hidalgo County, would allow it to come under Section 4 of the Texas Constitution which provides for hospital districts in all counties, with a maximum tax rate of 75 cents per $100 valuation of all taxable property.

If Proposition 8 is passed, the formation of a hospital district in Hidalgo County and the district’s tax rate would require approval from the county’s voters during an election.

o Arguments For

• Hidalgo is the only county in the state with a tax limitation of 10 cents per $100 property valuation. It is also the largest county without a hospital district. The existing limitation hinders its ability to create and operate a sustainable district. Passage of Proposition 8 would allow Hidalgo County the same taxing rate that other counties have.

• Hidalgo County has a high rate of uninsured residents, and this proposition could help the county establish a hospital district and obtain federal funds for much-needed emergency care for the poor.

o Arguments Against

• Passage of this proposition would likely increase the taxes for property owners in Hidalgo County, since a hospital district could be created with a tax rate as high as 75 cents per $100 valuation of all property.

• An increase in taxes could hurt the very people this proposition is hoping to serve: the poor.

 

—–

Proposition 9

Official Ballot Language: The constitutional amendment relating to expanding the types of sanctions that may be assessed against a judge or justice following a formal proceeding instituted by the State Commission on Judicial Contact.

Explanation

The State Commission on Judicial Conduct (SCJC) was created in 1965, through a constitutional amendment, to investigate allegations of judicial misconduct or disability and to discipline judges. The SCJC is responsible for ensuring that Texas judges comply with standards of conduct established in the Texas Constitution and by the Texas Supreme Court. Currently, after a formal disciplinary proceeding, the SCJC may issue an order of public censure or recommend removal or retirement of the judge/justice.

During its review of the SCJC, the Sunset Advisory Commission recommended that the SCJC be authorized to use its full range of disciplinary actions following a formal proceeding. If this proposed amendment passes, the SCJC may at its discretion issue a private or public admonition, warning, reprimand, or requirement that the person obtain additional training or education, as well as the censure or formal recommendations of resignation or retirement.

Arguments For

• Proposition 9 would lead to greater public accountability for judges and justices; continue to promote public confidence in the integrity, independence, competence, and impartiality of the judiciary, and encourage judges to maintain high standards of conduct both on and off the bench.

Arguments Against

• Stronger measures than those provided by Proposition 9 are needed to reinforce the SCJC’s authority to discipline judges and hold them accountable for judicial misconduct.

Senator Cruz returns to Texas welcome after shutdown battle

By Jim Forsyth

SAN ANTONIO (Reuters) – Republican U.S. Senator Ted Cruz, a favorite of the conservative Tea Party movement, returned home to a rousing welcome in Texas on Saturday after his attempt to derail Obamacare with a shutdown of the federal government led to sharp criticism of his tactics as reckless and futile.

“After two months in Washington, it’s great to be back in America,” Cruz joked in speaking to a crowd of about 750 people in a packed downtown San Antonio hotel ballroom.

Cruz was greeted with an eight-minute standing ovation in an appearance organized by the Texas Federation of Republican Women. People in attendance, many of them wearing red to show their support for keeping Texas a conservative-leaning state, lined up to greet him.

The speech and another talk earlier in the day at a panel in Austin marked Cruz’s first public appearance in his home state of Texas since his part in the showdown in Washington over the rollout of Obamacare that resulted in a 16-day shutdown of the federal government that ended on Thursday.

A related stalemate over the debt limit threatened to lead to a default on U.S. government debt until the Senate on Wednesday voted 81-18 to end the crisis and the House of Representatives followed with a vote of 285-144 to approve the plan, allowing government to open without defunding Obamacare.

Cruz in his speech in San Antonio blasted Senate Republican leaders for “failing to stand with House Republicans against the train wreck that is Obamacare.”

He declined to criticize any Republicans by name.

While he said the agreement to end the shutdown and extend the debt ceiling was a “lousy deal for the American people,” Cruz said the battle he and other Republicans waged will end up helping his party.

Cruz became a lightning rod for criticism from Democrats and even from key Republicans when he staged a 21-hour filibuster-style talk on the floor of the Senate last month, as part of his attempt to defund the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

The Texas senator, who has been in office for 10 months since his election last year, received scathing criticism from Democrats, the White House and even some of his fellow Republicans in the Senate during the shutdown and the debate leading up to it.

Senator John McCain from Arizona, a former presidential candidate, and Representative Peter King from New York have been two of the most vocal Republican opponents of Cruz’s tactics, with McCain calling Cruz and his allies “wacko birds.”

Cruz also took a hit in the polls. A Gallup poll released on October 10 found he had gained significant name recognition, but the percentage of Americans with an unfavorable view of him has jumped to 36 percent from 18 percent in June.

But the welcome Cruz received in Texas demonstrated his popularity among many Republican activists has grown.

In an interview with Reuters after his speech, Cruz said there is “a lot to be encouraged about” after the battle in Washington.

“We saw what can happen when the American people unite, when the American people stand up,” he said. “What the American people want is economic growth and job creation. They are crying out for something that fixes all the enormous damage that Obamacare is causing.”

(Additional reporting by Kevin Murphy in Kansas City, Missouri; Editing by Alex Dobuzinskis and Eric Walsh)

Sarah Palin Was Just Sued For This | TheBlaze.com

You mean they can sue for this photo that’s in the public domain

sept11

Former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin was sued Friday in federal court by a New Jersey-area newspaper publisher for alleged copyright infringement over her use of a 9/11 photograph.

The lawsuit was filed in Manhattan federal court by North Jersey Media Group Inc., according to the Associated Press.

HOUSTON, TX – MAY 03: Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin waves before speaking during the 2013 NRA Annual Meeting and Exhibits at the George R. Brown Convention Center on May 3, 2013 in Houston, Texas. More than 70,000 peope are expected to attend the NRA’s 3-day annual meeting that features nearly 550 exhibitors, gun trade show and a political rally. The Show runs from May 3-5. (Credit: Getty Images)

The publisher is accusing Palin’s SarahPac of posting a copy of an iconic September 11 photo on her website and Facebook page without their explicit permission.

Click here to see the photo at the center of the controversy

The photo shows three New York City firefighters raising an American flag over the rubble left in the wake of the World Trade Center attacks.

North Jersey Media Group Inc. is demanding Palin stop using the image and is seeking damages.

via Sarah Palin Was Just Sued For This | TheBlaze.com.

Best Blaze Comment

In an argument on a post from the theblaze this comment strikes me as the best sum-up

 

KNAGGIELAND

Sep. 7, 2013 at 10:36am

 

Yes Texas needs to get going. In an economic crisis the people voted not one but twice for BO it is very hard to argue with that kind of Short Bus. Texas has spent billions in the last few years but not on Texans. They have spent most of it on Katrina refugees and illegal aliens and the fact that they won’t go home. Houston alone had to raise taxes just to cover the cost of tutors year round to attempt to bring NOLO kids up to speed for the schools. Couple that with slashed oil production because of Obamas illegal shutting of federal oil leases and lands and the out of work roughnecks, and the EPA stopping mining and production of energy as well as the thousands of businesses that have been closed as a result and you have a lot of red ink.

If Texas seceded most of the Welfare professionals would leave immediately and probably go to Cali or Maine for the lavish benefits. The working welfare cases would just go back to work. Also the corporate taxes that the federal government relies so heavily on like Exxon and Valero would no longer go to DC and let us not forget how much military hardware and munitions the Federal Government purchases that is made right here in Texas. The Agri-Business from Texas A&M and the number of US military personnel.

I think Texas would do much better after a soul restoring divorce from this abusive dysfunctional marriage we have had to endure with the self centered egotistical parasitic rest of the nation.

 

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/09/07/texas-politician-says-state-is-preparing-to-become-independent-nation-in-case-union-falls-apart/
%d bloggers like this: