America's Last Stand

Local (California), National and World Events. The Liberal assault on Conservatism and American Family Values. Individual personal responsibility, and The Constitution of the United States. The degradation of American's (Individual) Rights and the ever growing divide between the people of America and their Government Representatives.

#tcot #CA #Taxes #Regulation

2010 total: 204 companies left California

By JAN NORMAN / VIA: THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER

In 2010, 204 California companies expanded outside the state or moved out completely, four times the number in 2009, according to Irvine business relocation expert Joe Vranich.

He just released his final tally for 2010 – 204 companies vs. 51 in 2009 – adding that he’s sure his list is incomplete.

“For every company departure or disinvestment event that becomes public, there are countless others that we don’t hear about,” he says. “If the event does not become public knowledge, there is no way to add it to the list.”

Vranich says he relies on public records, and some companies leave town with no fanfare. Also, he excludes individual retail stores or restaurants of big chains and companies whose departures appear unrelated to California’s tax and regulation environment.

“In the seven weeks since the last report, another 11 companies have left California completely or re-directed substantial capital to build facilities out of state that in an earlier era would have been built here,” Vranich says. “The number in today’s list is lower than the usual four-per-week average and I believe it’s because companies shy away from making such announcements during the end-of-year holiday season.”

Those additional  companies includes one in Orange County: Pick Up Stix, a San Clemente 70-unit restaurant chain, which was sold and moved to Bloomington, Minn.

The others are:

  • Five Cubits Inc., from Livermore to Elmhurst, Ill.
  • Art & Antiques magazine, from Malibu to Wilmington, NC
  • Obedia, from Los Angeles to Tennessee
  • Frama-Tech Inc., from Los Angeles to Navarre, Fla.
  • Carousel Carpet Mills, from Ukiah to Georgia
  • Fleetwood Enterprises Inc., from Riverside to Ducatur, Ind
  • Granada Corp., from Santa Barbara to Colorado Springs, Colo.
  • SumTotal Systems, from Mountain View to Gainesville, Fla.
  • Acument Global Technologies moved from Troy, Michigan to to Sterling Heights, Mich. (Michigan beat out California and Illinois because of special tax credits.)

Vranich also lists Force By Design, in San Francisco and Sal Luis Obispo, that received special tax credits for its East Lansing, Mich. expansion. But co-founder Micaich Filkins said the Michigan expansion was to serve customers in that state, and the company, which has 8 people in California now, anticipates having 75 to 100 here eventually.

Where were these companies going?

  1. Texas, 33 companies headed to the Lone Star State
  2. Arizona, 18 companies packed up for the Grand Canyon State
  3. Colorado, 15 moved all or in part to the Centennial State
  4. Nevada and Utah tied with 13 companies each

Vranich stresses that he doesn’t count companies that are expanding to new territories or buying firms in other states; that cut because of the recession but remained open in California; or that went bankrupt and had no evidence the closure was caused by California policies. Among the excluded companies:

  • PayPal Inc. opened in Malaysia to serve Southeast Asia
  • Three separate Intel expansions in Ireland, Vietnam and China
  • Cisco System is spending $1 billion in Russia
  • Valeant’s move from Aliso Viejo because of its merger with Biovail in Canada

#toct #obama #ForeignRelations

US ambassador to UK skips event honoring Reagan

Via: investmentwatchblog

Last night’s Guildhall dinner in honour of Ronald Reagan‘s centenary was a truly glittering and warm occasion.

The British roasted lamb and the sunny Californian chardonnay evoked the close Anglo-US relationship of Reagan and Thatcher as much as the fine speeches by Condi Rice and William Hague.

But guests were left asking, where on earth was the American ambassador to London, Louis B Susman?

“Our ambassador should be here,” said Lynn de Rothschild, the American entrepreneur who is married to Sir Evelyn de Rothschild and was one of Hillary Clinton‘s key fundraisers in 2008 as well as a supporter of several Republican presidential candidates. “This was an historic dinner to mark Reagan’s centenary and to celebrate him as the man who ended the Cold War. What could not be more important?

“Why is our ambassador not here on Independence Day? No excuse. How is it that America is not represented in this room by our ambassador? It is appalling that no representative of our government is in this room. This has the feel of petty partisanship.”

Ambassador Susman is, of course, a long-standing Democrat fundraiser, nicknamed the vaccuum cleaner for his skill at sucking donations out of the wealthy.  And his efforts to fill Obama’s campaign pockets was said by many to be his main qualification to come to London.

According to the US embassy spokesman: “Ambassador Susman was pleased to be invited to the dinner but was unable to attend.”

He had however been at the unveiling of a statue of Reagan in Grosvenor Square earlier in the day, and hosted a generous breakfast for the entire VIP visiting party and the military band. So he cannot be accused of snubbing the Reagan centenary.

But he missed some cracking speeches and anecdotes. For more details see the Standard story here.

And where was he?  The embassy won’t say.

#tcot

CAIR loses non-profit tax status

Ben Smith’s column in Politico (below) reported late last week that CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) has been stripped of its non-profit tax status by the IRS. What’s more, note CAIR’s less than candid explanations for what happened (highlighted below).

Among those who follow these matters it is common knowledge that CAIR has not filed its 990 non-profit tax return for the past three years.

We speculate one of the reasons CAIR has not done so is that CAIR does not want to disclose the foreign monies it receives. Such a disclosure would then confirm that CAIR is in violation of the Foreign Agent Registration Act.

It would appear that CAIR was more willing to give up its non-profit tax status than reveal that it is in violation of federal law.

We say it’s about time for a congressional investigation of CAIR.

Via: Act for America

#tcot

Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago, & our nation was the most prosperous in the world.
We had absolutely no national debt, had the largest middle class in the world, and Mom stayed home to raise the kids.

Accounts Receivable Tax
Building Permit Tax
CDL license Tax
Cigarette Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Dog License Tax
Excise Taxes
Federal Income Tax
Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
Fishing License Tax
Food License Tax
Fuel Permit Tax
Gasoline Tax (currently 44.75 cents per gallon)
Gross Receipts Tax
Hunting License Tax
Inheritance Tax
Inventory Tax
IRS Interest Charges IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
Liquor Tax
Luxury Taxes
Marriage License Tax
Medicare Tax
Personal Property Tax
Property Tax
Real Estate Tax
Service Charge Tax
Social Security Tax
Road Usage Tax
Recreational Vehicle Tax
Sales Tax
School Tax
State Income Tax
State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
Telephone Federal Excise Tax
Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax
Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Taxes
Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax
Telephone Recurring and Nonrecurring Charges Tax
Telephone State and Local Tax
Telephone Usage Charge Tax
Utility Taxes
Vehicle License Registration Tax
Vehicle Sales Tax
Watercraft Registration Tax
Well Permit Tax
Workers Compensation Tax

#2nd #rkba #tcot #opencarry #CA

Open Carry Ban Bill to be Heard This Monday in Sacramento
Contact members of the Senate Appropriations Committee TODAY!   This Monday, the state Senate Appropriations Committee is expected to hear Assembly Bill 144, a bill that would ban the open carrying of an unloaded handgun.   The language of AB 144 is back for a second consecutive year. This year it was introduced by anti-gun state Assemblyman Anthony Portantino. AB 144 is a clear demonstration of the irrational “gun-phobia” that so often drives our opponents. Anti-gun politicians in the legislature are not satisfied that law-abiding Californian’s are almost completely denied the right to carry; they also want to ban the open carrying of unloaded guns.   This bill is a knee-jerk reaction by anti-gun legislators to punish citizens for engaging in the legal act of openly carrying an unloaded handgun. In reality, the open carrying of firearms by law-abiding citizens is a result of California’s unfair concealed carry law, which allow citizens from some counties to received a permit to carry, while their neighbors in the next county are denied that basic right for political, not public safety, reasons.   Rather than place more restrictions on the right of self-defense for law-abiding Californians, the legislature should instead take steps to ensure that all citizens of the Golden State are treated equally by enacting a statewide “shall-issue” Right-to-Carry law, with clear standards for the issuance of a carry permit that all counties must follow.   Please call AND e-mail members of the Senate Appropriations Committee TODAY and urge them to OPPOSE AB 144. Contact information for the Committee can be found here. Please take a moment to forward this alert to your family, friends and fellow gun owners. The members of the Senate Appropriations Committee need to hear the opposition of this bill by ALL Californians.   This alert is posted to www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=6952

#tcot #rkba #2nd #nra

More irrational fear and Anti-Second Amendment Hysteria.

Why Does the Second Amendment Still Exist? 4-Year-Old Fatally Shot by Sibling at Home

Blog Link

While I get that the Constitution gives most everyone the right to bear arms, for the life of me I don’t understand why anyone would want to bear arms. Especially if they have children living in their home. If you’re living somewhere so unsafe that an alarm system and a good set of locks won’t keep you protected, perhaps it’s time to consider relocating.

To think that kids aren’t crafty enough to know of a gun’s presence in their own home and figure out the location of the key to get to a locked gun is just ignorant and dangerous. This is proven time and again.

Case in point: A 4-year-old boy in Telferner, Texas, is dead after his 5-year-old sibling shot him while playing with a bolt-action rifle in their home on Wednesday. Their parents were home at the time, although not directly supervising their kids at the moment the shooting occurred. They drove their wounded son to a nearby supermarket to meet the paramedics to take him to the hospital. Tragically, he didn’t survive.

 Children are curious. Children are nosy. Children are resourceful. Children are clever. Children are playful. Children are imaginative. Children are naughty.

Children are children. They should not be in proximity to guns. Please keep them out of your house. For their sake.

Do you keep a gun in your home?

Source: Fox News

#tcot #nra #rkba

Rep. McCarthy introducing national gun control legislation following Sen. Schumer’s lead

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/05/05/rep-mccarthy-introducing-national-gun-control-legislation-following-sen-schumers-lead/#ixzz1LWZL9bxv

A House bill that could drastically overhaul the nation’s gun control laws and strengthen federal power over states’ handling of individuals’ background checks is expected to be introduced today by New York Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, The Daily Caller has learned.

McCarthy is expected to drop the Fix Gun Checks Act of 2011 — a  near-identical companion to that of fellow New Yorker Chuck Schumer’s Senate bill — according to sources familiar with the legislation.

A draft of the bill obtained by TheDC makes clear that McCarthy’s legislation significantly mirrors Schumer’s much-publicized bill and would make three significant changes to current national gun laws. McCarthy’s proposed fixes include gun-control advocates’ long-sighted target in the national firearms debate — closing major “loopholes” of the milestone Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act.

Like its Senate companion, the House bill would also increase penalties for states that do not comply with the NICBC’s current requirements. States that do not make available the data needed to assess those who are or may be prohibited from possessing firearms could face reductions in the amount of federal crime-fighting funds they receive.

Another major provision of both bills focuses on the mental health issues of those seeking to possess firearms.

Apart from further defining and stipulating who qualifies as a “mental defective” both bills call for the development of mental health assessment plans for institutes for higher learning. Both bills would require federally funded colleges to develop a plan for the institutes to address risks posed by students who appear to need mental health help. Colleges must have a mental health “team” ready to assess potentially dangerous students as well as procedures in place for making voluntary and involuntary mental health referrals.

“Here we go again,” said National Rifle Association spokesman Alexander Arulanandam. “Rather than focusing her efforts on going after criminals [or] focusing her efforts on getting more information on ATF’s Fast and Furious program, [McCarthy is] opting to put more stringent regulations on law-abiding people.”

The NRA said that most criminals, especially the mental health cases like that of the Ft. Hood shooter Nidal Hasan and alleged Arizona gunman Jared Loughner make it through the cracks because current laws already in place are simply not being followed. Further restrictions on those law-abiding citizens who may have received some form of mental health treatment are being further punished.

“It’s too bad that this bill would put the burden on innocent people who are not a threat of society,” said Arulanandam, whose comments, like other 2nd Amendment advocates are in response to inquiries by TheDC, before obtaining a full copy of McCarthy’s draft bill. “Most people go through traumatic periods during their life and may seek some help and that person has never exhibited signs of being a threat to themselves or others. If that disqualifies them, that seems unreasonable … to say that that person cannot own a firearm.”

The legislation in both the House and the Senate represent just the latest reemergence of the national firearms debate following the Jan. 6 shootings in Tuscon, in which than a dozen were injured including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, who is still recovering from her traumatic brain injuries. On March 13, President Obama wrote an Arizona Daily Star Op-ed, calling for a “common sense” discussion over gun laws and the phrase was echoed by Democratic politicians, as well as New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who is head of the gun-control group Mayors Against Illegal Guns.

Two days after Obama’s op-ed, Schumer — along with McCarthy, Bloomberg and several other leading Democrats — held a press conference in front of the Capitol to push for more gun-control legislation. At the time, McCarthy indicated she was days away from introducing her companion piece. As the weeks went by, McCarthy’s office said it was carefully reviewing the legislation and listening to various concerns.

McCarthy appears to have taken some of those concerns to heart. Conspicuously absent from the Representative’s legislation is Schumer’s controversial proposal to ban the possession of firearms to anyone who’s been arrested, but not convicted, of a drug-related crime in the past five years.

In his op-ed, Obama stressed that the country should be “enforcing the laws already on the books,” and both gun-rights and gun-control advocates have expressed concerns that current firearms requirements are not being met. Gun-rights advocates, however, have called recently proposed legislation and publicity-seeking efforts of Bloomberg, cynical politicking in the wake of a tragedy. These critics, who have been winning legal ground the past few years, say that gun-control advocates are looking to restrict 2nd amendment rights any way they can, and not have any “common sense” debate.

Aside from the various proposals and arguments over legislation, legislators seem focused on one key aspect of the national firearms debate.

Since the Brady Act was signed into law in 1993, control-control advocates, including Rep. McCarthy, have targeted the “gun show loophole.” Although many states require gun-owner to register their firearms, the “loophole” allows any gun owner to conduct individual private sales without performing a full background check on the purchaser. Both Schumer’s bill and McCarthy’s propose requiring background checks for every firearm sold in the United States.

Although some data indicates otherwise, gun-control advocates claim criminals and those prohibited from obtaining firearms according to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICBC) can purchase weapons at these large congregations of private gun sellers.

Specific legislation to close the “gun show loophole” has been introduced in nearly every Congress since the Brady Act was passed and McCarthy has been a key figure in the annual fight. The representative has sponsored legislation specifically targeting gun shows at least six times in the past 11 years, including the most recent Gun Show Loophole Closing Act of 2011. McCarthy’s draft bill is exactly like Schumer’s most recent senate bill, however, in that it offers general prohibitions against any “unlicensed transferor.” Gun shows are not specifically mentioned in either the bill but it essentially means anyone who is not a licensed firearms dealer or any agent of the state capable of conducting immediate background checks.

Another key concerns of gun-control advocates, the availability of high-capacity magazine clips, is not mentioned in either bill.

Email Jeff Winkler and follow him on Twitter


#tcot #dtom

need is not demand. Effective economic demand requires not merely need but corresponding purchasing power.” -Henry Hazlitt 

#nra #tcot #rkba #ca #antigun @NRAILA

California: Anti-Gun Bills Passed in the Senate Public Safety Committee Please contact members of the Senate Appropriations Committee Today!   On Tuesday, April 26, the Senate Public Safety Committee heard and passed the following two anti-gun bills: Senate Bill 427, that would further restrict ammunition sales and Senate Bill 819, that would allow the Department of Justice to use background check fees for other uses.

Also on Tuesday, the Assembly Public Safety Committee heard and defeated a pro-gun bill: Assembly Bill 613, which would remove the language of AB 962 from California law.   In the Senate Public Safety Committee:   SB 427, introduced by anti-gun extremist state Senator Kevin De León (D-22), would force licensed state ammunition retailers to obtain a special local license to operate in municipalities.  These retailers would also be required to notify local law enforcement before conducting business within their jurisdiction.    SB 819, introduced by F-rated state Senator Mark Leno (D-3), would allow Dealer Record of Sales funds (DROS) to go to the Department of Justice to help pay for the enforcement of California firearm possession laws. The DROS fund monies were originally collected from every firearm purchaser to pay for the administrative process for background checks. However, these funds have been raided to help the Department of Justice pay their bills. As a result, the DROS fund will certainly run out of money. When it does, what will be their answer to this problem – another increase in the fees for background checks.   Unfortunately, both of these bills passed in the Senate Public Safety by a 5 to 2 vote. To see how the committee voted on SB 427, click here and to see the committee vote on SB 819, click here. SB 427 and SB 819 will now move to the Senate Appropriations committee. A hearing has not been set and the NRA will keep you posted on the status of these bills. In the meantime, please contact members of the Senate Appropriations Committee urging them to OPPOSE SB 427 and SB 819. These bills will only hurt law-abiding gun owners and do nothing to stop crime. Contact information for the Senate Appropriations Committee can be found here.   In the Assembly Public Safety Committee:   AB 613 was a crucial bill that would have removed all the anti-gun language from AB 962, which was enacted in 2009, in California’s gun statutes. Unfortunately, the Assembly Public Safety Committee failed to pass this crucial piece of legislation by a 2 to 3 vote (roll call vote). We will get you the roll call vote as soon as it is available. Funded by the NRA and the California Rifle and Pistol Association, a lawsuit was filed and the Fresno County Superior Court found AB 962 unconstitutional earlier this year. The Court then issued a permanent injunction, which prevents the state and its agents from enforcing the provisions of AB 962 (Penal Code sections 12060, 12061, and 12318). Even though the provisions of AB 962 cannot be enforced, this detrimental language needs to be removed from the books.    Please continue to check your e-mail and www.NRAILA.org for updates on legislation moving through the California legislature.

ATF all-out flank attack on our right to keep and bear arms. #rkba #tcot

Via: National Association for Gun Rights

Did you know the ATF is trying to re-define the law?

And they’ve got their anti-gun sights set on your SHOTGUN.

In January, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives released a document announcing a study that would dramatically tighten regulations on shotguns.

With the tacit approval of the Obama Administration, the ATF hopes to use bureaucratic rule changes to ban the importation and sale of certain shotguns based on their twisted view of the “sporting purposes” clause in the 1968 Gun Control Act.

There’s one major problem.

As you know, the purpose of the Second Amendment isn’t to protect “sports.”

It’s to protect citizens — like you and me — from a tyrannical government.

This proposal by the ATF is an all-out flank attack on our right to keep and bear arms.

The ATF’s ridiculously anti-gun study suggests that certain, and in many cases very random, criteria would make a shotgun unable to be imported. Those random criteria include:

• Folding, telescoping or collapsible stocks;

• Bayonet lugs;

Flash suppressors;

• Magazines over 5 rounds, or a drum magazine;

• Integrated rail systems;

• Light enhancing devices;

• Excessive weight (greater than 10 pounds for a 12 gauge);

• Excessive bulk;

• Forward pistol grip.

You read that right. Excessive weight and bulk will get your shotgun banned.

You and I both know, none of the items listed make a firearm more or less dangerous.

It is a list of completely arbitrary items that have more to do with appearance than anything substantial.

The ATF might as well say they don’t want anything “black” to be imported – it would be just as logical.

But their blatant disregard for the truth doesn’t stop there.

The United States Practical Shooting Association (USPSA) and the International Practical Shooting Confederation (IPSC) might be interested to know that the ATF doesn’t consider their matches a “sport”…

But the ATF has made a mistake, and I need you to capitalize on it.

They have opened up a comment period – open until April 30 – by which the general public can voice their opinions on this “study.”

That means gun owners like you and I, simply MUST make our voices heard by the anti-gun bureaucrats in Washington.

They think that they quietly slip these regulations through without taxpayers and voters making a fuss.

Gun owners must let them know we’re watching their every move.

That’s why I need you to contact the ATF and tell them to keep their hands off your shotgun and to ditch their ridiculous, anti-gun study.

You can send them a message by clicking here.

Over the next few days, I intend to urge National Association for Gun Rights’ members like you to flood the ATF with emails stating exactly how ridiculous their proposal is.

This ban is not about public safety.

It is nothing less than the Obama administrations latest attempt to use bureaucratic wrangling to trample over your Second Amendment rights.

It is another example of a power grab by an already out of control government agency.

Apparently it wasn’t enough for them to funnel firearms into Mexico.

Now they want to keep you from having a home defense shotgun.

I need you to contact the ATF TODAY and tell them to keep their hands off your shotgun and to ditch their ridiculous, anti-gun study.

You can send them a message by clicking here.