tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18230673183582736792024-03-07T19:28:07.438-08:00Forest Of WordsLifeIsABloghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11788904514406164213noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1823067318358273679.post-68857093255650766292012-10-28T19:44:00.003-07:002012-10-28T19:44:30.922-07:00<a href="http://turtletalk.wordpress.com/2012/08/01/update-in-dish-network-v-tewa-tribal-court-exhaustion-case/">Update on the Hopi Indians VS Dish Network case</a><br />LifeIsABloghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11788904514406164213noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1823067318358273679.post-24126861563802684282012-05-01T15:54:00.004-07:002012-05-01T15:54:37.859-07:00Mitt Romney on guns<i>"As governor of Massachusetts, Mitt was proud to support legislation that
expanded the rights of gun owners. He worked hard to advance the
ability of law-abiding citizens to purchase and own firearms, while
opposing liberal desires to create bureaucracy intended to burden gun
owners and sportsmen. As governor, he also designated May 7th as “The
Right to Bear Arms Day” in Massachusetts to honor law-abiding citizens
and their right to “use firearms in defense of their families, persons,
and property for all lawful purposes, including common defense.”"</i><br />
<br />
Mitt Romney wanted federal ballistic fingerprinting in 2002 <i></i><br />
<i><br /></i><br />
Mitt supported assault weapons ban.<br />
<br />
Romney in 2007 falsely claims he owes a gun, goes hunting, and is a member of the NRA<br />
<i><br /></i><br />
Romney has an uneasy relationship with gun owners. "I don't line up with
the NRA," he said when he tried to oust Sen. Edward M. Kennedy in
Massachusetts in 1994. <br />
<br />“He supported the Brady Bill, supported the gun ban, increased taxes
on gun licenses by 400 percent when he was in the state of
Massachusetts,” <br />
<br />
Sources:<br />
<br />
(with videos):<br />
http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/mitt-romney-has-complex-history-on-guns<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/04/13/romney-to-woo-key-conservative-group-at-nra-event/" target="_blank">http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/04/13/romney-to-woo-key-conservative-group-at-nra-event/</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-04-13/romney-varmint-hunting-tales-aimed-at-gun-owning-skeptics" target="_blank">http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-04-13/romney-varmint-hunting-tales-aimed-at-gun-owning-skeptics</a>
<br />
<br />
<h1>
<br /></h1>LifeIsABloghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11788904514406164213noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1823067318358273679.post-72920970753871522682012-05-01T15:31:00.001-07:002012-05-01T15:31:35.011-07:00Mitt Romney on Russia<br />
<i>Obama’s Failure</i><br />
<i><br /></i><br />
<i>"He continued the same “we give, Russia gets” policy by signing the New
START treaty in 2010. While the agreement compels the U.S. to reduce our
nuclear launcher and warhead limits, the levels it sets for Russia are
above what the Russians possessed at the time the agreement was reached.
In other words, New START gave Russia room to expand its arsenal while
requiring the United States to reduce our own. In any event, even if we
put aside the demerits of the treaty, it was a squandered opportunity to
extract concessions from the Russians that would have advanced our
interests. Thus, President Obama failed to press for meaningful
reductions not only in Russia’s strategic nuclear arsenal, but also in
its extensive tactical nuclear force. And he failed to elicit Russian
help in dealing with North Korean and Iranian nuclear ambitions."</i><br />
<br />
So....what is Mitt promising to do?<br />
<i> </i><br />
<i>"Mitt Romney will review the implementation of the New START treaty and
other decisions by the Obama administration regarding America's nuclear
posture and arms-control policies to determine whether they serve the
best interests and national security of the United States."</i><br />
<br />
What. What? 'Review to determine *IF* they are in the best interest of the U.S.??<br />
<i> </i><br />
But Mitt -<i> </i>You just said they were failures. Why not say you will work to repeal the START? Funny wording there (basically giving yourself and easy out while throwing bones to your base).<br />
<br />
<i>"Mitt Romney will pursue policies that work to decrease the reliance of
European nations on Russian sources of energy. He will explore
increasing technical assistance to the Eastern European nations
currently developing the Turkey-to-Austria Nabucco natural gas pipeline,
which will supply Europe with a cheaper source of energy and options
apart from Russian oil and gas. </i><br />
<br />
Explain to us why WE need to do this and Europe cannot?<br />
<br />
"<i>A Romney administration will also work
with the private sector to spur access to untapped shale energy
resources in Western Europe."</i><br />
<br />
OK. Work with them how? Any details on what the U.S. government is going to be involved in or how? And again - why the US?<br />
<i> </i><br />
<i>"With the Kremlin’s leverage over the energy supplies of Central and
Western Europe, its stockpile of nuclear weapons, its recent history of
aggressive military action, and the power it wields in multilateral
institutions like the United Nations, Russia is a destabilizing force on
the world stage.<b> It needs to be tempered.</b>"</i><br />
<br />
I'll quote here from <a href="http://whowhatwhy.com/2012/04/04/mitt-and-barry-spar-over-russiawhom-can-you-trust/">another writer:</a><br />
<i> </i><br />
<i>"</i><br />
Tempered how? By, according to “Mitt’s Plan” on his Russia page:
reassessing (and possibly discarding) Obama’s mutual disarmament treaty
with Russia, enacting policies to redirect European funds away from the
Russian oil industry, strengthening military and trade relationships
with other Central Asian states, and bolstering “civil society”
movements, within Russia, to resist the influence of the “authoritarian”
government.<br />
And then—voilà—stability in the region? Targeted economic
interference, military assistance to regional adversaries, encouraging
domestic unrest—all time-tested cornerstones of any good roadmap to
peace, right? If you think so, vote Romney."<br />
<br />
<i> "A Romney administration will build stronger relationships with the
states of Central Asia by enhancing diplomatic ties, increasing military
training and assistance, and negotiating trade pacts and educational
exchanges."</i><br />
<br />
This implies that ties are weak - does Mitt have any examples or sources for this assertion? If so, why not add them to his site?<br />
<i> </i><br />
<i>"A Romney administration will be forthright in confronting the Russian government over its authoritarian practices."</i><br />
<br />
Anyone can confront them. I could send a strongly worded letter myself. Care to explain HOW you will confront them? <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<h2 class="title blue">
<span><br /></span></h2>LifeIsABloghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11788904514406164213noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1823067318358273679.post-50593439960343364722012-05-01T14:42:00.001-07:002012-05-01T14:45:47.676-07:00Mitt Romney's plan for the Military<a href="http://www.mittromney.com/issues/national-defense">Mitt on the issues: Defense. </a><i><br /></i><br />
<br />
<i>"The Obama administration’s cuts have left us with a military inventory
largely composed of weapons designed forty to fifty years ago."</i><br />
<br />
And why didn't Bush fix that when he was in office?<br />
<br />
The US outspends every other country on the planet.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending"> "The USA with its massive spending budget, is the principal determinant of the current world trend, and its military expenditure now accounts for just under half of the world total, at 43% of the world total"</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://defense%20spending%20has%20continued%20to%20increase./">Defense spending has continued to increase.Not decrease.</a><br />
<br />
<i>"The
average age of our tanker aircraft is 47 years, of strategic bombers 34
years. While the weapons in our arsenal remain formidable, they are well
along on the path to obsolescence. Along with the aging process, there
has been a precipitous decline in sheer numbers. The U.S. Navy has only
284 ships today, the lowest level since 1916."</i><br />
<br />
The biggest cuts in # of ships came from 2000-2007.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/org9-4.htm#1993">We had 318 total ships in 2000. 285 now. There are more being built to replace ships that have retired but are not yet completed. </a><br />
<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.alipac.us/f19/cutting-edge-u-s-navy-warship-being-built-maine-254979/">Here is one.</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.marinelink.com/news/austalbuilt-funds-navy343176.aspx">Here are two more.</a><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<i> Our Air Force, which had 82 fighter
squadrons at the end of the Cold War, has been reduced to 39 today.
President Obama has cut funding for national missile defense."</i><br />
<br />
Wait a minute. Mitt is saying that our average tanker aircraft is 47 years old. Why weren't more built during the Bush administration then?<br />
<br />
Secondly, why are we in need of cold war totals today? We have better fighters that are supposed to do more with one fighter than many (and they cost a ton) like the F-35.<br />
<br />
And there is this from January 2012: <a href="http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/pentagon-slashes-fighter-squadrons-airlifters-in-new-budget-proposal-367457/">"But the review also rededicated the Department of Defense to supporting new military aviation programmes, including the next-generation bomber and the Boeing KC-46A tanker." - what was that about tankers Mitt?</a><br />
<br />
<i>"This will not be a cost-free process. We cannot rebuild our military
strength without paying for it. Mitt will begin by reversing Obama-era
defense cuts"</i> <br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/goog_1905260624">From 2008-2012 the budget has increased.</a><i><a href="http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/defense_chart_30.html"> </a></i><br />
<i><br /></i><br />
From about $400 Billion in 2002 to $900 billion in 2012.<br />
<br />
<i>"During World War II the United States built 1,000 ships per year with
1,000 people employed in the Bureau of Ships, as the purchasing
department of the Department of the Navy was then called. By the 1980s,
we were building seventeen ships per year, with 4,000 people in
purchasing. Today, when we are building only nine ships a year, the
Pentagon manages the shipbuilding process with some 25,000 people."</i><br />
<br />
Wait - so we ARE still building ships to add to the largest Navy in the world?<br />
<br />
<i>"With proper management, we can do far better in controlling costs and getting more for our taxpayer dollars."</i><br />
<br />
Whoa, hold on there a second. Mitt wants to increase the budget and control costs? So basically, more money, less people working, but more weapons? Why not decrease the budget to reflect the cuts in personnel some - or would that be too 'liberal'? <br />
<br />
<i>"The cost of preparedness may sometimes be high, but the cost of
unpreparedness is almost always higher — not just in tax dollars but in
human life and in the survival of liberty and representative government."</i><br />
<br />
No one is saying not to be prepared or not to have a defense budget, it is the level that is generally being discussed. How many more nukes does one need? If we cut that 25,000 people above down to 2,000 that would save money and the budget could be lowered (but as Mitt says, he wants to increase it).<br />
<br />
Next up - More from Mitt's issues section. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />LifeIsABloghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11788904514406164213noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1823067318358273679.post-32303468989136341602012-04-24T04:37:00.007-07:002012-04-24T06:32:33.899-07:00DISH network VS the Hopi Tribe<span style="font-weight: bold;">The suit:</span> DISH claims that the Hopi tribe does not have legal jurisdiction to charge it an annual $500 fee based on USC 47 U.S.C. § 303(v); 47 U.S.C. § 152 note and section 602 of the communications act. They claim only states can charge fees (or collect/levy taxes) on satellite services. DISH also wants a judge to find that they do not have to consent to Tribal jurisdiction (Section 17 of the Hopi code)<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">Relevant Information:</span><br />Section 303(v) of the Communications Act preempts non-federal regulation of DBS (Direct Broadcast Satellite) service, and Section 602 of the Communications Act explicitly bars local governments from taxing or imposing any<span style="font-weight: bold;"> fee</span> on the right of DBS providers to do business within their jurisdictions.<br /><br />DISH contends that the Tribe can not legally enforce either the fee or tribal rulings in relation to the matter. (source: PDF of the court filing, see link to suit below)<br /><br />The tribe first charged the fee in 2009, then sued Dish Network in Tribal Court in December 2011, seeking an injunction ordering Dish to get a business license and pay an annual fee, plus "a $500 a day penalty for failure to obtain a license and pay the annual fee in the past," according to the complaint. (source: <a href="http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/04/23/45845.htm">Courthouse News Service</a>).<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">The suit:</span><br /><a href="http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/04/23/HopiTV.pdf">http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/04/23/HopiTV.pdf</a><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(51, 51, 255);">Hopi Code (Section 17): </span><br /><a href="http://www.narf.org/nill/Codes/hopicode/title1.htm#ord21">http://www.narf.org/nill/Codes/hopicode/title1.htm#ord21</a><br />Chapter 7. JURISDICTION<br /><br />1.7.1 JURISDICTION - CIVIL.<br /><br />a. The Hopi Tribal Court shall have jurisdiction over all civil actions where there are sufficient contacts with the Hopi Indian Reservation upon which to base the exercise of jurisdiction, consistent with the constitution and laws of the Hopi Tribe and the United States. It is the intent of this section to authorize the broadest exercise of jurisdiction consistent with these limitations.<br /><br />b. The Hopi Tribal Court shall have all powers and may issue all writs, judgements or any ether order necessary to the complete and effective exercise of its jurisdiction.<br /><br />c. In the exercise of its civil jurisdiction, the acts of the Hopi Tribal Court shall be construed as being remedial and for the purpose of obtaining complete and effective compliance with ail applicable laws for the peace, health, safety and welfare of all residents and other persons having contacts with the Hopi Reservation.<br /><br />d. Any person, whether or not a member of the Hopi Indian Tribe or a resident of the Hopi Indian Reservation, or other legal entity who in person or through an agent commits any of the acts hereinafter enumerated, thereby submits to the civil jurisdiction of the Hopi Tribal Court as to any cause of action relating to such act:<br /><br /> -The transaction or doing of any business within the Reservation;<br /><br /> -The commission of a torturous act within the Reservation;<br /><br /> <span style="font-weight: bold;">-The ownership, use or possession of any real or personal property within the Reservation</span>;<br /><br /> -Contracting to insure any person, property or risk residing or located within the Reservation at the time of contracting or at the time the acts occur which are the basis of the civil action;<br /><br /> <span style="font-weight: bold;">-Contracting with the Hopi Tribe, a member of the Hopi Tribe,</span> or any other person-or other legal entity for the sale or purchase of any goods or services knowing or under circumstances where it reasonably should have known that such contract is to be performed or is in fact performed on or from within the Hopi Reservation; and<br /><br /> -Any other acts or conduct which establish such minimal contacts with the Hopi Indian Reservation or with the Hopi Tribe so that the exercise of civil jurisdiction by the Hopi Tribal Court would not be contrary to traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. (Revised H-92-91)<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(51, 51, 255);">US Communications act of 1996 code:</span><br /><a href="http://transition.fcc.gov/telecom.html">http://transition.fcc.gov/telecom.html</a><br /><br />(a) DBS SIGNAL SECURITY- Section 705(e)(4) (47 U.S.C. 605(e)(4))<br />is amended by inserting `or direct-to-home satellite services,' after `programming,'.<br /><br /> (b) FCC JURISDICTION OVER DIRECT-TO-HOME SATELLITE SERVICES-<br /> Section 303 (47 U.S.C. 303) is amended by adding at the end thereof<br /> the following new subsection:<br /><br /> <span style="font-weight: bold;">`(v) Have exclusive jurisdiction to regulate the provision of</span><br style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"> direct-to-home satellite services. As used in this subsection, the</span><br style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"> term `direct-to-home satellite services' means the distribution or</span><br style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"> broadcasting of programming or services by satellite directly to </span><br style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"> the subscriber's premises without the use of ground receiving or</span><br style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"> distribution equipment, except at the subscriber's premises or in</span><br style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"> the uplink process to the satellite.'.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(51, 51, 255);">Section 602:</span><br /><a href="http://trace.wisc.edu/docs/telecomm_act_96/s652.txt">http://trace.wisc.edu/docs/telecomm_act_96/s652.txt</a><br /><br />SEC. 602. PREEMPTION OF LOCAL TAXATION WITH RESPECT TO<br /><br /> DIRECT-TO-HOME SERVICES.<br /><br /> (a) PREEMPTION- <span style="font-weight: bold;">A provider of direct-to-home satellite service</span><br style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"> shall be exempt from the collection or remittance, or both, of any</span><br style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"> tax or<span style="font-style: italic;"> fee </span>imposed by any local taxing jurisdiction on</span><br style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"> direct-to-home satellite service.</span><br /><br /> (b) DEFINITIONS- For the purposes of this section--<br /><br /> (1) DIRECT-TO-HOME SATELLITE SERVICE- The term<br /> `direct-to-home satellite service' means only programming<br /> transmitted or broadcast by satellite directly to the<br /> subscribers' premises <span style="font-weight: bold;">without the use of ground receiving or</span><br style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"> distribution equipment, <span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">except </span>at the subscribers' premises or</span><br style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"> in the uplink process to the satellite.</span><br /><br /> (2) PROVIDER OF DIRECT-TO-HOME SATELLITE SERVICE- For<br /> purposes of this section, a `provider of direct-to-home<br /> satellite service' means a person who transmits, broadcasts,<br /> sells, or distributes direct-to-home satellite service.<br /><br /> (3) <span style="font-weight: bold;">LOCAL TAXING JURISDICTION-</span> The term `local taxing<br /> jurisdiction' means any municipality, city, county, township,<br /> parish, transportation district, or assessment jurisdiction, <span style="font-weight: bold;">or</span><br style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"> any other local jurisdiction</span> in the territorial jurisdiction of<br /> the United States with the authority to impose a tax or fee,<br /> but does not include a State.<br /><br /> (4) STATE- The term `State' means any of the several States,<br /> the District of Columbia, or any territory or possession of the<br /> United States.<br /><br /> (5) <span style="font-weight: bold;">TAX OR FEE</span>- The terms `tax' and `fee' mean any local<br /> sales tax, local use tax, local intangible tax, local income<br /> tax, business license tax, utility tax, privilege tax, gross<br /> receipts tax, excise tax, franchise fees, local<br /> telecommunications tax, or any other tax, license, or fee that<br /> is imposed for the privilege of doing business, regulating, or<br /> raising revenue for a local taxing jurisdiction.<br /><br /> (c) PRESERVATION OF STATE AUTHORITY- This section shall not be<br /> construed to prevent taxation of a provider of direct-to-home<br /> satellite service by a State or to prevent a local taxing<br /> jurisdiction from receiving revenue derived from a tax or fee<br /> imposed and collected by a State.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Snippets from the suit brought by DISH:</span><br /><br />Section 15: ...Subscribers enter into a subscription agreement with DISH<br /><br />Section 16: DISH Service provides installation service for DISH. DISH Service<br />enters the reservation to install the satellite dish receiver and the decoder box on the<br />subscriber’s residence. <span style="font-style: italic;">DISH Service has no independent relationship or agreements,</span><br style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;">express or implied, with the subscriber.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">Some thoughts on it:</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"></span>This is a bit larger than just one small lawsuit over $500. One thing which caught my eye was this:<br /><br />142 Cong. Rec. (statement of Rep.Hyde) “Section 602 reflects a legislative determination that the provision of direct-to home satellite service is national, not local in nature. . . . To permit thousands of local taxing jurisdictions to tax such a national service would create an unnecessary and undue burden on the providers of such services.”.<br /><br />This has broad implications as can be seen in a lawsuit from Kentucky. Basically, school districts were imposing a tax on DBS's and claiming that since they were also state entities (ie, school taxes in Kentucky are considered state taxes) and states were exempted from the 1996 Communications Act they could levy the tax.<br /><br />The court found this was not the case since the taxes were set up on a district by district basis.<br /><br />This was noted in the <a href="http://opinions.kycourts.net/sc/2007-SC-000714-DG.pdf">Kentucky case</a> (and I find this important to the case at hand):<br /><br />In adopting the House version, the<br />Conference Committee explained that<br /><span style="font-style: italic;">[t]he conference agreement adopts the House</span><br style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;">provisions with modifications. This section exempts</span><br style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;">DTH [direct-to-home] satellite service providers from</span><br style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;">collecting and remitting local taxes and fees on DTH</span><br style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;">satellite services . DTH satellite service is programming</span><br style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;">delivered directly to subscribers equipped with satellite</span><br style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;">receivers at their premises ; <span style="font-weight: bold;">it does not require the use</span></span><br style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">of public rights-of-way or the physical facilities or</span><br style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">services of a community</span>. The conferees adopt the</span><br style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;">House language, but narrow the language to ensure</span><br style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;">that the exemption is only provided for the actual sale</span><br style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;">of the programming delivered by the direct-to-home</span><br style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;">satellite service. . . . <span style="font-weight: bold;">The intent of these amendments is</span></span><br style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">to clarify that the exemption<span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);"> applies only</span> to the</span><br style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">programming provided by the direct-to-home satellite</span><br style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">service.</span> To give two illustrative examples, the</span><br style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;">exemption does not apply to the sale of equipment; . . .</span><br style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;">In addition, the exemption does not apply to real estate</span><br style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;">taxes that are otherwise applicable when the provider</span><br style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;">owns or leases real estate in a jurisdiction . Also,</span><br style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;">States are free to tax the sale of the service and they</span><br style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;">may rebate some or all of those monies to localities if</span><br style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;">they so desire .</span><br /><br />I am still researching this case and will comment on it later in the day.<br /><br />Edited to add link:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.hopi-nsn.gov/TribalServices/RevenueCommission/tabid/223/Default.aspx">Office of Revenue Commission</a><br /><br /><br /><br /><br style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">LifeIsABloghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11788904514406164213noreply@blogger.com0