#TaxScam or #NeverOwedBefore - The Rude Awakening

Like others across the nation, I saw a news report - well, actually I was half-paying attention to it in the background while busy doing something - about some household in Texas who was getting hit with owing the IRS several thousands of dollars, rather than getting the return they expected.

While it did mention the changes in property taxes being capped with the president's new tax cuts for last year, the explanation wasn't real clear as to how it affected this family's tax outcome for this filing period we're currently in and why they owed so much money.

I suspected there was something the report was deliberately omitting, or not telling the viewers about; isn't that the "modus operandi" of today's Media (D)? Then, this report from MRCTV popped into my mailbox this morning and, after reading it I clearly understood what the report I saw earlier on this topic was leaving out.

Because tax payers have become conditioned by the IRS over the years to have more deducted from the paychecks and have gotten back at filing time a modest to large return for having had more deducted than they needed to, they've become reliant and expectant about getting it this year, but, depending on how they have their taxes done - themselves, an tax accountant, or financial planner - the change of the property tax cap which was part of the tax cut changes, were not factored into how it would impact their new filing outcome; in other words, they didn't adjust their deduction to compensate for it.

Voila! Many have either gotten less money back, or now owe the IRS money they've never had to pay because of that change. Yet, the media is using this circumstance to portray it as a failure. This is so typical of them! I'm convinced this subtle conditioning of taxpayers is how they easily manipulate them; especially those who don't understand adequately what they need to do to compensate for a change. (Evidence: The white haired lady in the video said, "...thanks to the Trump administration!")

What the Media's (D) failing to point out was that due to the tax cut change, these people were getting a small amount more in every paycheck each pay period, which many may not have noticed because it was not a significant, or noticeable amount each month, and they most likely didn't adjust their deductions because of the change on property tax, either themselves or with their tax accountant or financial planner.

If you want to understand better how our government's tax system works, just watch this video.  It might help you to realize why the liberals & socialists play the rich against the poor.

The Green New Deal of AOC's

No doubt you've heard about the proposal put forth by Alexandria Occasio-Cortez; the youngest person ever elected to Congress from New York City.

I won't spend a lot saying anything about it here, but...

Her "Green New Deal" has recently been critiqued by none other than billionaire Bill Gates.

Here's the Heritage Foundation's take on it, as well. 

Oh, and BTW... I've got to give kudos to NBC for having the hoots bah to posting the Senate Investigation Committe's actual findings on the "Russian Collusion" claim by the Media (D). I bet they're all saying to themselves, "What a big disappointment! We thought we'd done a good job of convincing everyone on this."

The Left's Divisiveness Goes On

It was in the '90s when the Clintons initiated the concept of political correctness. Now, it's become a weapon, used by the leftist/socialists, to bully anyone who opposes, or disagrees with their ideology. Today, I've come to view this political correctness as the left's modern religion, without the forgiveness if you're liberal or socialist; most of the time.

I say "most of the time" because my previous post - Lesbian Gets Kicked Off Gay Rights Commission - points out how you can be a leftist ideologically, but still get punished for not conforming.

But what exactly is this "political correctness", and what are it's origins?

My personal research has revealed to me that it came out in the '90s with the Clintons in the White House because of Hillary Clinton's college thesis paper on Saul Alinsky. (Bill was too busy raping women to care about what Hillary did.) Anyone who's looked into her association with this man, who was an avowed communist, knows that his mode of operation to get his way in organizing the workers of Chicago involves the principles he spelled out in his book, Rules For Radicals. This was exposed by some who did their homework during her recent run for the presidency against Donald Trump. (For a slightly more in-depth insight into this man's history, check out this short video clip.)

One of those principles is to take one's opposition and use specific tactics to create an impression in the public's eye that is undesirable by using his list of rules:

1. "Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have."
2. "Never go outside the expertise of your people."
3. "Whenever possible go outside the expertise of the enemy."
4. "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules."
5. "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon."
6. "A good tactic is one your people enjoy."
7. "A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag."
8. "Keep the pressure on."
9. "The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself."
10. "The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition."
11. "If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside."
12. "The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative."
13. "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."

Examining this list of concepts he used, and trained others to use, effectively and without any compunction, has become, in my view, the foundation of the left's movement using what is now political correctness today. 

For anyone who lived through the Obama administration's eight years, it should be obvious these rules were utilized by him as well. After all, Obama's climb to prominence originated in the Chicago area and it is known he studied and used Alinsky's rules as well.

So, under the guise of creating a "utopian society" the left is actually effectively balkanizing the country for the purpose of pitting factions against each other. Rather than working to unify individuals behind our nation's freedoms, liberties, and opportunities, it is pandering the base nature of the selfish, greedy, envious, and unscrupulous, individual to generate hate and chaos.

If you think my stating this is too far fetched, then I suggest one watches this short video or, this short video, which explains how the Southern Poverty Law Center and leftists use such rules of Alinsky's to bully organizations on a massive scale today.

Lesbian Activist Kicked Off Gay Rights Commission

Well, boys and girls, oh wait, should I use those pronouns? Anyway, as the title for this post states, a lesbian, Julia Beck, was kicked off the Baltimore Gay Rights Commission for using the wrong pronoun to describe a rapist. Yes, you read that correctly. Here's what Trace Gallagher on Tucker Carlson's show shared about the issue.

Julia Beck was offered the chance to join Baltimore Mayor Katherine Pew's LGBTQ Commission and Beck thought it was a prime opportunity for her to voice the concerns of the under represented. But, as the only lesbian on the commission, she immediately felt excluded.

She even wrote an article titled, "How I became the most hated lesbian in Baltimore" (afterellen.com). Beck writes that she committed the unforgivable saying, "Even if a male identifies as a female he's still a male." She cited the case of the convicted rapist Karen White, who is legally a man admitted to raping several women and was then sent to a women's prison in the U.K. where he proceeded to rape two other female inmates.

After all that, it remains unclear if Karen White, who was David Thompson, is actually in the process of transitioning into a woman. But, according to Julia Beck, questioning the White's gender was the final straw, and she was kicked off the commission, writing:

After a month long witch-hunt, I was found guilty of "violence." My crime? Using male pronouns to talk about a convicted male rapist who identifies as transgender and prefers female pronouns... It is far more criminal for me to call a rapist "he," than it is for him to rape.

We contacted the Baltimore Mayor's office for comment. It had no comment.

Now, here's the interview with Julia Beck on Carlson's show and what she had to say about this issue. I urge readers to watch this carefully, for it reveals some very important points which we all may be facing in the future, either in the workplace, or just interacting with people we meet, for which we are unaware might be going through the process of "transgendering," if there's such a word, and we might offend them. Be careful!

If you think I'm being over-reactive, then I offer you this video of John Stassel interviewing Jordan Peterson. I hope it opens your eyes to the reality of what kind of insanity the college students of the millennial age, or younger, today have been insisting we change to.

Well, I guess that movie title from several decades ago wasn't too far fetched after all. I'm referring to, "It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad, world!" But it's getting down right scary, if you ask me.

Voter ID Laws - Discriminatory or Necessary?

The following text was part of a recent email I received from the Republican State Leadership Committee (RSLC):

Over the past decade, Republican state legislators have fought to ensure the integrity of elections by passing laws that require voters to present a photo ID before they are permitted to vote.

These laws have been a success in protecting our elections and stopping illegal votes from being counted on Election Day.

But now liberal activists have announced plans to devote over $30 million to overturn voter ID laws passed by state legislators and supported by the American people.

Voter ID laws make it easier to vote and harder to cheat and have been upheld by courts across the country. 

We've heard about this issue many times in the past, but here's one article from 2016 I found in researching this topic:

African-Americans who fought for voting rights during the Civil Rights movement claim the new laws are meant to secure a Republican majority in states with large black populations that consistently vote Democrat. In July, a North Carolina federal court overturned the state’s voter ID law, ruling that it targets African-Americans “with almost surgical precision.”

Question: Do you drive a car, truck, RV, SUV, or any other type of motorized vehicle requiring a driver’s license to operate? You do? So do I! An so do most people of driving age in this country.

This quote above, and here “Nine Southern states have implemented voting restrictions since 2012. Most require voters to show state-issued photo ID at the polls.” caused me to wonder about the real motive behind such a piece. In this article from CBS News, the implication is that there are hundreds of thousands of residents in the southern states who do not have state-issued photo ID; who happen to be black. Really?

Question: Why is this article using the Civil Rights movement of the sixties and linking more recent laws passed by southern states about voter ID laws to it?

Answer: Liberals want to continue the narrative of racism to leverage false claims which have nothing to do with the reason for these new laws, but, more importantly, to continue fostering voter fraud such as multiple votes which have been proven to have occurred. Another reason for such recent laws is because of the massive influx of illegal immigrants who are effectively blending into our society and have attempted, sometimes successfully, to vote in our elections, that’s why!

Notice how the reporters who wrote this short, but obviously biased, article using words like “claim” and phrases like, “… secure a Republican majority…” and “… states with large black populations that consistently vote Democrat.”? These arguments fall apart when one realizes the fallacy of the points made regarding the requirement of state-issued photo ID to be presented at the polling locations in an election.

If there actually are those who do not posses a driver’s license, and they are interested in voting – it would be interesting to know what the actual voter participation of southern state residents actually is – then it wouldn’t be that difficult for them to go to where they could prove legal residence and acquire a state-issued photo ID in advance.

Is that expectation and motivation to protect the integrity of our elections from being defrauded racist, or discriminatory? Of course not!

Funding For the Border Wall?

With the conviction of "El Chappo" in court recently, the question has arisen as to whether Sen. Cruz's bill he's introduced in the Senate of using the seized assets of the convicted drug kingpin's - $14 Billion - will gain momentum, or is even possible.

This concept seems like a logical and sensible solution to the meager amount announced through negotiations between Republican and Democrat representatives tasked to negotiate funds - $1.37 Billion - to avoid a second partial government shutdown this coming Friday.

I suspect that, while it may gain traction in the Senate, once it arrives in the newly dominated Democratically controlled House, it will meet a silent death.

However, if we who support such a concept put sufficient pressure on our representatives, it might cause enough political inertia to create at least some level of dialogue in committee at get media attention; well, at least on FOX News, but not so much on the alphabet channels like ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN and PBS.

And, for those who don't believe we have a drug smuggling problem coming from Mexico, I invite you to watch this video:

 
 Hey, at least I'm trying to be positive and hopeful!

Living in the "Brave New World"

I have interacted on and used the Internet since the late ‘80s of Radio Shack’s TRS 80s and Commodore 64 computers. I recall fondly the days when I’d use a land line phone modem to connect. Those days are considered the “Jurassic period” of the Internet’s history now. Over those decades I’ve seen the progression of its growth; from the Netscape browser to the advent of Google and the ever-increasing chip speeds, and water cooled gaming systems to handle the heat generated by them.

However, there is one thing about interacting on the Internet which greatly disturbs and annoys me, and, I’m sure, the vast majority of users across the nation. We all know it as “junk mail”. For the typical online user, dealing with these annoyances have been obviously growing futile as we lead and conduct our busy lives of doing business, or even just communicating with family online across the country, or around the globe.

Since I can only speak for myself, allow me to account what my experience has become of late. I’ve subscribed to certain organizations I wish to support, or receive information from. I’m also well aware of the reality of how business on the Internet and in the digital age has evolved and works. Some of these companies, or organizations, sell subscribers' email addresses to other similar type businesses and organizations as a way to make money. The CAN-SPAM Act of 2015 only set rules for commercial emails; whatever the term “commercial” means to the FCC. Hey, I'm all for "free enterprise", but it’s obvious to me that it hasn’t resulted in diminishing junk mail which has been growing at an exponential rate.

As a result, I’ve received “junk emails” from various online businesses or organizations to which I never subscribed. Consequently, I’ve used the “unsubscribe” links, found in very small font size, at the very bottom of a page, to take me off their list. This experience has resulted in the reality that there is a plethora of different “unsubscribe” formats, or designs. Some are immediate, informing the user that you’ve been removed from their list. Others require you to type your email address in to get the desired result. I speak from experience having been a web designer in the past myself. You know the drill because you’ve, no doubt, experienced this yourself.

Yet, my experience with attempting to “unsubscribe” has resulted in getting more new, and unwanted, emails from other previously unknown businesses, or organizations,  to which I never subscribed. My only logical conclusion as to why this happens is that upon unsubscribing from one entity, that entity then takes those email addresses for unsubscribe requests and sells them to other businesses, or entities, which are aligned with their kind of organization, or business. Otherwise, how would that new entity get my email address?

I’m sure there are probably other methods and means by which this happens, but it’s highly annoying to have to take time to deal with these pesky emails – often “click-bait” type ones – which have grown to exorbitant levels lately. I can hear those who might be reading this saying, “What’s your problem, dude, just use the delete button!” I do, but I spend more time pressing delete, than I do reading the ones I want to keep. I’m also aware of the fact that there are those who simply acquire a new email address on another provider to get away from them.

If this practice is breaking a law the FCC, or whichever other federal bureaucracy has regulated, then it’s obviously a lost cause, and very few, if any who engage in selling my email without my consent are being prosecuted and fined, or whatever they do. So, apparently, dealing with these annoyances is merely a fact of life in the digital age of social media and Internet use. And I’ve only restricted my topic to one narrow sector of online use which is now the dominant means of interaction for the vast majority of our nation’s population today.

Instead, our elected representatives, either in our state or nationally, are busy and overwhelmed with so many other priorities that the seemingly insignificant things – like pestering, unwanted emails – grows ever more pervasive to the point in the future when use will diminish significantly by user choice, and significant reduction of commerce on the Internet will result. Then again, with the younger generations not knowing anything differently, they will most likely just accept it as a normal thing in life.

But, when one’s lived during the period through which there was no Internet for the common user, to where almost every appliance or gadget we purchase today is in some way connected to the web, then it blows their mind about the “brave new world” we’ve evolved into. I shudder to think about what's to come!