Texas agency destroyed records related to search for Democrats
What are the odds that the nation media picks up on this issue? I would say 1 to 3 against. What are the odds that there is any kind of either State or Federated investigation into this? I would say 1 to 20 against. What are the odds that anyone who dares to raise this as a political issue being labeled unpatriotic? I would say 1 to 1; take it to the bank.
[Link via Atrios]
Wednesday, May 21, 2003
Tuesday, May 20, 2003
Captain Nate vs. Moby Farrakhan?
For some bizarre reason Nate Livingston is pushing for an investigation into a member of the Nation of Islam because he claims that person "did not report her earnings or pay her taxed to the city of Cincinnati, Hamilton County, the State of Ohio, or the United States government." Ms. Ava Muhammad reportedly broke the boycott and gave a speech at an event here in Cincinnati. Nate has written letters to various public officials of each entity mentioned above. Nate needs to check up on a few things. Regarding Cincinnati Law, when I read § 311-15 Exception to the Tax it starts off with one line “The tax provided for herein shall not be levied upon the following:” and then paragraph (h)
The main issue that Nate seems to miss, is that this is income is for 2003. The group who paid Ms. Muhammad does not have to immediately report that income to any government this soon, because she is not their employee. They may very have to report it, but not this quickly, and it is not Ms. Muhammad’s responsibility to report it until she files her tax returns for 2003 next April, which is why I assume Nate is going after Victoria Straughn.
Also, for the record, you don’t have to report income to Hamilton County. They don’t lay taxes on income.
Nate is oddly attacking groups that other members of his crowd would logically support. What is comical is that Nate is calling the CCFJ (Coalition of Concerned Citizens for Justice) a “gang.” He claims groups like the Nation of Islam and CCFJ “have threatened to commit vicious and violent acts against anyone who opposes them.” There are members of Nate’s boycott B “gang”, including Nate himself, that one might argue the same could be true. That is either ironic, or hypocritical or both.
For some bizarre reason Nate Livingston is pushing for an investigation into a member of the Nation of Islam because he claims that person "did not report her earnings or pay her taxed to the city of Cincinnati, Hamilton County, the State of Ohio, or the United States government." Ms. Ava Muhammad reportedly broke the boycott and gave a speech at an event here in Cincinnati. Nate has written letters to various public officials of each entity mentioned above. Nate needs to check up on a few things. Regarding Cincinnati Law, when I read § 311-15 Exception to the Tax it starts off with one line “The tax provided for herein shall not be levied upon the following:” and then paragraph (h)
on the compensation of an individual if all of the following apply: (1) the individual does not reside in the city of Cincinnati; (2) the compensation is paid for personal services performed by the individual in the city of Cincinnati on twelve or fewer days in the calendar year; (3) in the case of an individual who is an employee, the principal place of business of the individual's employer is located outside of the city of Cincinnati and the individual pays tax on the compensation described in subsection (2) of this section to the city, if any, in which the employer's principal place of business is located, and no portion of that tax is refunded to the individual.seems to indicate that Ms. Muhammad does not have to pay Cincinnati income tax, unless she earns income here for 11 or more additional days this year.
The main issue that Nate seems to miss, is that this is income is for 2003. The group who paid Ms. Muhammad does not have to immediately report that income to any government this soon, because she is not their employee. They may very have to report it, but not this quickly, and it is not Ms. Muhammad’s responsibility to report it until she files her tax returns for 2003 next April, which is why I assume Nate is going after Victoria Straughn.
Also, for the record, you don’t have to report income to Hamilton County. They don’t lay taxes on income.
Nate is oddly attacking groups that other members of his crowd would logically support. What is comical is that Nate is calling the CCFJ (Coalition of Concerned Citizens for Justice) a “gang.” He claims groups like the Nation of Islam and CCFJ “have threatened to commit vicious and violent acts against anyone who opposes them.” There are members of Nate’s boycott B “gang”, including Nate himself, that one might argue the same could be true. That is either ironic, or hypocritical or both.
Bearcats' Hicks is suspended
I hate to say it, but this is nothing new to the Cincinnati Bearcats. What I wonder is, now that the Cinco de Mayo Six might get booted, this basketball player might get booted, but when you read this
I hate to say it, but this is nothing new to the Cincinnati Bearcats. What I wonder is, now that the Cinco de Mayo Six might get booted, this basketball player might get booted, but when you read this
"University of Cincinnati sophomore quarterback Gino Guidugli was arrested Sunday for the second time in four months after he allegedly punched an opponent in an intramural basketball game."but you don't here anyone asking if he violated school policy, I have to wonder why he is special? How many other basketball players did things wrong, but did not get expelled from UC? This incident alledged took place on UC campus, so all bets are off, this is covered by school rules no question. Will UC do the right thing and expel Gudugli? I will not hold my breath. {Full Disclosure: I am a Miami grad, so I am slightly biased.}
Boycott coalition targets concert
The concert still went on despite a lawsuit and the usual mini-carnival of militant racist boycotters.
The concert still went on despite a lawsuit and the usual mini-carnival of militant racist boycotters.
An "Unindicted" Folk Hero
Chris Anderson comments on what some are calling the Northside Vigilante. Prosecutor Mike Allen was on 1230 the Buzz today, giving a typically bland performance. Mike has big balls. He dismissed the obvious fact that Mr. McKinney clearly was carrying a gun in a liquor establishment, a crime. He weakly tried to rationalize the grand jury's decision based upon being presented all of the affirmative defenses Mr. McKinney could employ. Couple this erroneous claim with the contention on the Buzz that only one gun was found at the scene. Mike could have easily refuted that claim, but instead of claiming he could not answer that under law, he said that he really did not know the facts of the case well enough to answer. This case smells bad. The case was a slam-dunk light sentence, but it still should have gone to trial. This does nothing but provide fodder to the criticism of the Justice System. If this man was not a Citizens on Patrol Program member he would have been indicted, and Mike Allen’s office would have gotten it done. The old cliché is more often than not true; the DA can get a ham sandwich indicted. In this case he could not get a soon to be NRA poster boy indicted. Guns for all, justice for the gun owner, and screw the rest.
Chris Anderson comments on what some are calling the Northside Vigilante. Prosecutor Mike Allen was on 1230 the Buzz today, giving a typically bland performance. Mike has big balls. He dismissed the obvious fact that Mr. McKinney clearly was carrying a gun in a liquor establishment, a crime. He weakly tried to rationalize the grand jury's decision based upon being presented all of the affirmative defenses Mr. McKinney could employ. Couple this erroneous claim with the contention on the Buzz that only one gun was found at the scene. Mike could have easily refuted that claim, but instead of claiming he could not answer that under law, he said that he really did not know the facts of the case well enough to answer. This case smells bad. The case was a slam-dunk light sentence, but it still should have gone to trial. This does nothing but provide fodder to the criticism of the Justice System. If this man was not a Citizens on Patrol Program member he would have been indicted, and Mike Allen’s office would have gotten it done. The old cliché is more often than not true; the DA can get a ham sandwich indicted. In this case he could not get a soon to be NRA poster boy indicted. Guns for all, justice for the gun owner, and screw the rest.
Monday, May 19, 2003
Because things like this tick me off
Matt Weiler has a problem with the City of Chicago's snub of Cincinnati in its names of streets. Other Ohio cities are represented, but not Cincinnati. I think we should boycott Chicago until this injustice is overcome.
Matt Weiler has a problem with the City of Chicago's snub of Cincinnati in its names of streets. Other Ohio cities are represented, but not Cincinnati. I think we should boycott Chicago until this injustice is overcome.
Sunday, May 18, 2003
BRONSON: Justified shooting by a 'guardian angel'
Another conservative who seems to have abandoned any pretense of supporting the rule of law. Laws seem to be avoidable if you happen to break one that opposes the cause celeb of the gun lobby.
I again understand not charging the man with assault. I don't agree with it, but I understand it. I do not understand not indicting him on the charge of possession of a firearm in a liquor establishment. The trial jury could have found him not guilty or even given a very light sentence, or better yet, the guy could have cut a deal and served no time. This grand jury should be reviewed as much as the Twitty grand jury was. I would like to know the racial make-up of the jury. I would like to know if any witnesses were called. I wonder if this will be talk radio fodder tomorrow. My guess is that the usual suspects will comment on it in their predictable fashion, a cheer from WLW and a boo from the Buzz. Bronson’s advocacy of vigilantism is not new, but is expected when it is politically constructive.
Another conservative who seems to have abandoned any pretense of supporting the rule of law. Laws seem to be avoidable if you happen to break one that opposes the cause celeb of the gun lobby.
I again understand not charging the man with assault. I don't agree with it, but I understand it. I do not understand not indicting him on the charge of possession of a firearm in a liquor establishment. The trial jury could have found him not guilty or even given a very light sentence, or better yet, the guy could have cut a deal and served no time. This grand jury should be reviewed as much as the Twitty grand jury was. I would like to know the racial make-up of the jury. I would like to know if any witnesses were called. I wonder if this will be talk radio fodder tomorrow. My guess is that the usual suspects will comment on it in their predictable fashion, a cheer from WLW and a boo from the Buzz. Bronson’s advocacy of vigilantism is not new, but is expected when it is politically constructive.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)