Back to Basics

Via Bare Naked Islam, “While Netanyahu and Abbas meet in Washington to humor the clueless American foreign policy decider-in-chief … Muslim radicals and their diehard leftie supporters (i.e., Code Pinko) gather in Washington to call for the elimination of the Jewish State of Israel“:

And at the Investigative Project on Terrorism, “Another Islamist Rally for Hate in D.C.” Here’s this from the YouTube description:

As Palestinian and Israeli leaders meet in peace negotiations just a few miles away, the speakers called for a rejectionist line on Israel.

“The time has come that we must stir up our ‘religious leaders’ in this country to speak the truth about Israel,” said Kaukab Siddiqi. “They must put their hands on the Quran and say that they do not recognize Israel as a legitimate entity. If they cannot do that, they must be branded as kaffirs [infidels]. It’s as simple as that. Because the Quran says — drive them out from where they drove you out.”
As was the case at last year’s demonstration, speakers spewed hate speech to a crowd dotted with Hizballah flags. Among the speakers was retired ambassador Edward Peck, and Mauri Saalakhan,

Salaakhan peddled copies of his book, The Palestinians’ Holocaust, at the 2009 ISNA convention. It’s a collection of essays including his claim that Israel was responsible for the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 and includes a defense of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

And listen carefully to Siddiqi at about 1:20 minutes: “Each one of us is their target and we must stand united to defeat, to destroy, to dismantle Israel if possible by peaceful means.” Yeah “peaceful,” if possible. Professor Siddiqi is on the faculty at Lincoln University, Baltimore Pike, Pennsylvania. Just the thought of taking a course with this man, and people just like him, makes me sick to my stomach.

Here’s the event announcement, “Annual Al-Quds Day Rally for Justice in Palestine and the Oppressed Everywhere.” And the roster of speakers:

Medea Benjamin (co-founder of Code Pink and Global Exchange)
Edward Peck (Retired U.S. Diplomat/ survivor from the Gaza flotilla)
Rabbi Yisoroel Dovid Weiss (Neturei Karta International)
Chuck Carlson (founder of We Hold These Truths)
Hajj Mauri Saalakhan (Director of the Peace and Justice Foundation)
Imam Abdul Alim Musa (Masjid al-Islam, DC)
Imam Abolfazl Nahidian (Manassas Mosque, Manassas, VA)
Safiyyah Abdullah (spoken word artist)
Ebrahim Mohseni (spoken word artist)

Jim Kelley from the TucsonCitizen.com

The following is a press release from the Pima County GOP.

CALIFORNIA’S IMMIGRATION LAW VERY SIMILAR TO SB 1070

CA Cities Can Now Boycott Each Other

California’s penal code section 834b requires, not merely permits, law enforcement to attempt to verify the immigration status of people who are suspected of being in the US illegally.

But there are basic differences.  The California law requires verification of immigration status when a person has been arrested.  Under section 834 of the Calif. Penal Code, that means when a person has been taken into custody.  Arizona requires verification when there has been “any lawful stop, detention, or arrest.”  Note that HB2162, the amendments to the original Arizona law, inserted “any lawful stop, detention or arrest” in place of “contact.  Arizona requires verification when there is “reasonable suspicion” that the person being stopped, detained, or arrested might be in the US illegally.  California does not require “reasonable” suspicion.  Verification is required only if it is “suspected” that the person is in the US illegally.  But one difference stands out.  Nothing in the California Penal Code Section 834b prohibits police from basing their decision on a person’s race or ethnicity the way HB2162 explicitly prohibits Arizona police from considering “race, color, or national origin” when carrying out their duties “except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution.”  Again, Arizona’s SB1070 prohibited police from solely basing their actions on “race, color or national origin.”  HB2162 deleted the word “solely,” which means that the police cannot consider these factors at all unless it is permitted by the US and Arizona Constitutions.

Apparently some Californians haven’t noticed they live in a glass house.  It’s time they stop throwing stones at Arizona.

For those who claim there are no additional “taxes” imposed by this bill, they should refer to Title IV, Amendments to Internal Revenue Code of 1986 in which you will find “Sec. 401 Tax on Individuals Without Acceptable Health Care Coverage” as the first item to be added.  This bill not only increases government spending but it WILL INCREASE TAXES in more than one way.  Unfortunately, this section constantly refers to the Internal Revenue Code, so without actually looking at that code it is impossible to tell exactly what is being change.  Many of the references include “strike this and add…” and many times this is an increase in percentages or wording changes, so you would have to refer to the IRS code to determine what affect this has.

There are a number of business related changes to the IRS Code, many of which I could not interpret.  So if you are a business owner, especially a small business owner, I would recommend you read this section to see how it would apply to you.  This whole section reads like Greek, and if you have ever tried to read and interpret the IRS manuals this section of the bill is written in the same manner.  Consult your representative or tax accountant for clarification.  Because of this, I have included only portions of the tax code changes that apply to individuals and some general requirements as they apply to businesses.

The first tax is one imposed on individuals who do not have acceptable health care coverage.  This tax is 2.5 percent of the excess of the taxpayer’s modified adjusted gross income (adjusted gross income increased by the amount of interest received or accrued which is exempt from tax) for the year over the amount of gross income specified in section 6012(a)(1).  (I could not locate the reference in the bill to section 6012, so this may be an IRS code reference.)  This tax cannot exceed the national average premium for the taxable year as determined by the Secretary of Health & Human Services, under a basic plan offered in the Health Insurance Exchange.  If an individual resides outside the US they must get coverage, as well as anyone residing in possessions of the US.

This tax shall not apply to any individual who is a non-resident alien.

Acceptable coverage is (a) Qualified health benefits plan, (b) Grandfathered health insurance coverage, coverage under grandfathered employment-based health plan, (c) Medicare Part A, (d) Medicaid, (e) Members of the armed forces and dependents, including Tricare, (f) VA, and (g) Other coverage recognized by the Secretary in coordination with the Commissioner.

There are requirements for anyone who provides acceptable coverage, including a return that contains the name, address and TIN of the primary insured and the name of each individual obtaining coverage under the policy, the period each individual was provided coverage, and other information the Secretary may require.  If the insurance is provided by a governmental unit or agency, then the officer or employee who enters into the agreement to provide the coverage shall make the returns.  There is a penalty for failure to file, which amends sections of the IRS code and without referring to that code you cannot tell what is being amended.