Bristol Palin seems to be enjoying the limelight. Bristol Palin is the oldest daughter of former Governor of Alaska and Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin. Bristol Palin and her former boyfriend/fiancé for now, Levi Johnston are constantly in the news annoying America with the latest trivia of their dyfuctional young lives. Bristol Palin seems to be enjoying her brief period of fame, even if it originates from her mother Sarah Palin. The main stream media displays Bristol Palin and Levi Johnston as some kind of role models despite of the obvious facts to the contrary.
According to the Associated Press, Bristol Palin age 19 was seen at night in the Rumrunners Old Towne Bar and Grill recently. Alaska law requires that a person under 21 years of age be accompanied by a parent, spouse or legal guardian that is over 21 years of age. It was reported that Bristol Palin was accompanied by two unnamed people and was not consuming any alcoholic beverages. Bristol Palin was attending a performance by her “Dancing with the Stars” partner, Mark Ballas. Alaska State law would allow Bristol to be in an establishment that was designated as a bona fide restaurant if she was only there to eat.
The Palin family attorney is reportably defending Bristol Palin’s presence in the Old Towne Bar and Grill. It seems that Bristol Palin is expecting us to believe that the Old Towne Bar and Grill is the same as Denny’s. Sarah Palin with her family values and “my children can do no wrong” philosophy will defend Bristol to the end despite the law. If the Old Towne Bar and grill is not a bona fide restaurant are we to believe that Sarah Palin gave legal guardianship to some unnamed persons who attended the bar with Bristol? If so, does a normal 19 year old mother need a legal guardian?
I wonder how many strings are being pulled to get the old Towne Bar and Grill a retroactive bona fide restaurant designation. Meanwhile, Bristol Palin seems to be using Lindsey Lohan as her role model as to respecting the law.
Meanwhile, Levi Johnston was recently in court after being sued by Bristol Palin for back child support for their son Tripp. Levi Johnston is reported to be between $10,000 and $13,000 behind in child support. It was Bristol Palin’s out of wedlock pregnancy that first cast the couple into the limelight. Levi Johnston was presented as the handsome all American hunk. Bristol Palin later became America’s abstinence spokesperson and teenage role model. Levi Johnston and Bristol Palin never miss a chance to capitalize on the fame that came from their relationship to Sarah Palin who set the example.
Since Bristol Palin is making the big money on “Dances with the Stars” and hanging out in bars, maybe Levi Johnston should consider getting custody of Tripp and suing Bristol Palin for child support. After all, if she needs a legal guardian herself, how can she be the legal guardian of young Tripp? Anyway, America eagerly awaits the next news breaking report of trouble between Bristol Palin and Levi Johnston.
Sources
Associated Press.com
ABC News.com
Sunday, November 07, 2010
Friday, February 05, 2010
Obama Wants Amnesty For Illegal Aliens 2010
President Obama and Liberal Democrats in Congress want to push for Amnesty for illegal aliens by early 2010. This would allow illegal immigants to vote and have even more health care. Depite the drain these people impose on the welfare and health care systems. Obama and the liberal Democrats are acting like fuedal lords acting in total defiance and contempt of the willof the American people. The elections of 2011 should put an end to their "rule" of the American people.
Wednesday, February 03, 2010
PHOENIX FOOD TAX UNFAIR & DISCRIMINATORY
The Phoenix City Council passed a new 2% tax on food on Tuesday February 2. The City passed the tax in an effort to avoid drastic budget cuts in City services including the police and fire departments. The City is proposing the layoff of about 400 police officers. Mayor Phil Gordon claims this tax will raise $50 million that can be used to finance the police and fire departments, among other city services. Items purchased with food stamps are exempt from the tax...
The newly imposed tax raises fairness and possibly even Constitutional issues. Let’s consider the case of three people buying food in the same store. The first lost his job and is working part time trying to get by. The second is a senior citizen squeaking by on a small monthly Social Security check. Both pay for their own food without any government assistance. Both purchase their groceries and pay the extra 2% in sales tax. The third makes their purchase with government food stamps and pays no taxes.
Now the first two pay the tax with their own money even though they may be in a significantly worse financial position than a person receiving government food stamps and probably Access as well. What incentive is there for them to tough it out? Why get taxed on your rice and beans when someone else is eating tax free meat? How is this fair?
This tax is arguably discriminatory against some of citizens in its application. The Supreme Court applies the “rational basis” test to most tax laws. The law just has to be rationally related to a legitimate state interest. However, the Courts grant less deference to a City ordinance than a law passed by a States’ Legistslature. A Constitutional lawyer can probably come up with some reasonable arguments against the tax.
The City claims that the tax is necessary to prevent layoffs in the police and fire departments. This is fear mongering designed to take attention away from the bloated City bureaucracies. The City can certainly make budgetary cuts without involving the police or fire departments. Any City official that has to target the police and fire departments first should find another line of work. Their overspending created this problem in the first place.
Some interesting budget facts can be found on the official web site of District 6 Councilman, Sal DiCiccio. DiCiccio discovered that the average cost of all city workers is $100,000 including benefits. He found that the average private sector compensation was around $54,100, in the Phoenix area. The City is spending twice as much on average than the private sector. DiCiccio wants the City to focus on core functions and basic services. He is opposed to a tax increase and the food tax in particular.
Mayor Gordon can certainly find areas to cut the City budget without laying off first responders from the police and fire departments. The Food Tax is bound to fail to achieve its stated goal. People will shop elsewhere. And for every person that avoids the 2% tax, the store loses 100% of that sale. Fewer sales equal less revenue. Less revenue equals less income to the City. Do the math. The only people who will buy there groceries in Phoenix are those with too much money to care and those too broke to go anywhere else.
Sources
phoenix.gov
azfamily.com
house.leg.state.mn
The newly imposed tax raises fairness and possibly even Constitutional issues. Let’s consider the case of three people buying food in the same store. The first lost his job and is working part time trying to get by. The second is a senior citizen squeaking by on a small monthly Social Security check. Both pay for their own food without any government assistance. Both purchase their groceries and pay the extra 2% in sales tax. The third makes their purchase with government food stamps and pays no taxes.
Now the first two pay the tax with their own money even though they may be in a significantly worse financial position than a person receiving government food stamps and probably Access as well. What incentive is there for them to tough it out? Why get taxed on your rice and beans when someone else is eating tax free meat? How is this fair?
This tax is arguably discriminatory against some of citizens in its application. The Supreme Court applies the “rational basis” test to most tax laws. The law just has to be rationally related to a legitimate state interest. However, the Courts grant less deference to a City ordinance than a law passed by a States’ Legistslature. A Constitutional lawyer can probably come up with some reasonable arguments against the tax.
The City claims that the tax is necessary to prevent layoffs in the police and fire departments. This is fear mongering designed to take attention away from the bloated City bureaucracies. The City can certainly make budgetary cuts without involving the police or fire departments. Any City official that has to target the police and fire departments first should find another line of work. Their overspending created this problem in the first place.
Some interesting budget facts can be found on the official web site of District 6 Councilman, Sal DiCiccio. DiCiccio discovered that the average cost of all city workers is $100,000 including benefits. He found that the average private sector compensation was around $54,100, in the Phoenix area. The City is spending twice as much on average than the private sector. DiCiccio wants the City to focus on core functions and basic services. He is opposed to a tax increase and the food tax in particular.
Mayor Gordon can certainly find areas to cut the City budget without laying off first responders from the police and fire departments. The Food Tax is bound to fail to achieve its stated goal. People will shop elsewhere. And for every person that avoids the 2% tax, the store loses 100% of that sale. Fewer sales equal less revenue. Less revenue equals less income to the City. Do the math. The only people who will buy there groceries in Phoenix are those with too much money to care and those too broke to go anywhere else.
Sources
phoenix.gov
azfamily.com
house.leg.state.mn
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)