Senator Charles Rangel introduces H.R. 5741

This is how the bill is represented on OpenCongress.org:

"H.R.5741 - Universal National Service Act

To require all persons in the United States between the ages of 18 and 42 to perform national service, either as a member of the uniformed services or in civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, to authorize the induction of persons in the uniformed services during wartime to meet end-strength requirements of the uniformed services, and for other purposes."

Clearly this has been a pet project of Mr. Rangel since 2003.  According to OpenCongress.org reporting of statements, this is a strategy to AVOID war.  Read the following quote from their website:

"Calls for a renewed military draft

In 2003, immediately before the United States invasion of Iraq, Rangel called on Congress to reinstate a military draft, the last of which had been discontinued at the end of the Vietnam War. He advocated the idea on the basis that it would both spread military service more equitably across the socio-economic spectrum and make leaders think more carefully before engaging in military action which would put members of their communities in harm's way, his contention being that the military is disproportionately made up by normally disenfranchised segments of the population. His bill would have created a draft of people aged 18-26.^[1]
In 2006, he introduced a similar bill mandating service for those between the ages of 18 and 42. Neither bill progressed in the Republican-controlled Congress and neither received tremendous attention in the press.^[1]
After the November 7 Democratic midterm victory, Rangel once again voiced his desire to see a draft implemented. As a top member of the newly-minted, majority party, this declaration received much more attention than his previous attempts to introduced legislation. His proposal called for using the draftees at airports and seaports as well as in the military. Democratic leaders, however, immediately released statements saying that reinstating the draft was not on their agenda for the 110th Congress. Opinion polls at the time showed that 70% of Americans opposed reviving conscription.^[1}" 

Conspiracy theory?

This is a wake up call.  I, like many of you, have looked at conspiracy theorists with my "you're nuts" look.  It may well be that some of the things presented in this video are inaccurate, however, the questions raised and information revealed cannot be lightly ignored.





It's time to act! We must work to get honest people elected in both parties. Don't sit back and wait for someone else to do it. That someone else is us.

So who voted in favor of ObamaCare?

Here is a link to the list of names.  If your elected officials are on this list, please write to them to let them know that their job is on the line.

Let's be reasonable...

I recognize that the majority of of the "minority" who are against ObamaCare are extremely reasonable, and planning to use due process to remove from office those who have failed to listen to their constituency. They are angry but not mad.  However, I just read in the paper of some shameful behavior of a few who have let their anger, though justified, get the better of them and they are going mad.  People ridiculing a man on the street diagnosed with Parkinson's because he is in favor of the Bill, someone throwing a brick through a House Representative's window, others sending threatening emails. Some of these people were named as "teabaggers" a reference, I suppose, to the Tea Party movement.  It seems to me that this is self defeating behavior and does not bring attention to the higher goals and aims of the movement, but brings the organization down.  This is not what was intended, I am sure, by the founders of the movement.  Violence is not justifiable in this controversy.

It was not too long ago that voter turnout was very low in many areas of the country in the political caucuses and primaries and so when the general election came, the choice of candidates in each of the parties was between one you really didn't like and one you didn't like.  This is why I joined the Republican Party, to be able to have a say in who became the Republican candidate.  Now iCaucus has also potentially given me a chance to have a say in who might become the Democratic candidate as well.  This is where the battle needs to be fought, with your vote.  Use your vote, people.  Use it every step of the way.  Don't get petty.  This distracts attention from where it really needs to be focused.  Don't sling insults at those who don't agree with you (okay, I should not have called Obama an idiot--sorry).  Take a time-out if you have to and arm yourself with facts and incontrovertible information.  Learn to have well-informed discussions so that you can disagree without becoming disagreeable.  Let's reason together.

Oh, Bad Obama!

Obama has just succeeded in becoming the Chief Executive Idiot! (CEI for short).  How can he be so arrogant as to require Americans to purchase health insurance?  Where, I ask you, is the money to do this going to come from?  Our hides?  Yes, they say that you can get government subsidized health care if you make less than $80K.  However, that is just going to create a whole other mess.  Middle-class people are going to try to hide what they make in order to qualify, just like they do on their tax returns.  That will create a whole new arm of government dedicated to making sure you don't lie about what you make so they don't have to subsidize your health care.  Also this new governmental department will be busy penalizing people for not having health care, I suppose, by charging fines which people won't have the money to pay.  How, in the name of all that is reasonable, is this going to work, Mr. Obama?  Guess what?  It isn't.  All the middle class workers are going to get mad and mobilize against you.  Small business are going to help in the campaign.  If they can, they will kick you out of office.  I hope to goodness they do, and I will stand first in line to help with the can-kicking.

Colorado's new sales tax law

This bill was a bit longer than the quote here, but this is the part most pertinent to Amazon and other online retailers.

39-26-102. Definitions. As used in this article, unless the context
otherwise requires:
(3) "Doing business in this state" means the selling, leasing, or
delivering in this state, or any activity in this state in connection with the
selling, leasing, or delivering in this state, of tangible personal property by
a retail sale as defined in this section, for use, storage, distribution, or
consumption within this state. This term includes, but shall not be limited
to, the following acts or methods of transacting business:
NOTE: This bill has been prepared for the signature of the appropriate legislative
officers and the Governor. To determine whether the Governor has signed the bill
or taken other action on it, please consult the legislative status sheet, the legislative
history, or the Session Laws.
________
Capital letters indicate new material added to existing statutes; dashes through words indicate
deletions from existing statutes and such material not part of act.
(b) (I) The soliciting, either by direct representatives, indirect
representatives, manufacturers' agents, or by distribution of catalogues or
other advertising, or by use of any communication media, or by use of the
newspaper, radio, or television advertising media, or by any other means
whatsoever, of business from persons residing in this state and by reason
thereof receiving orders from, or selling or leasing tangible personal
property to, such persons residing in this state for use, consumption,
distribution, and storage for use or consumption in this state.
(II) COMMENCING MARCH 1, 2010, IF A RETAILER THAT DOES NOT
COLLECT COLORADO SALES TAX IS PART OF A CONTROLLED GROUP OF
CORPORATIONS, AND THAT CONTROLLED GROUP HAS A COMPONENT MEMBER
THAT IS A RETAILER WITH PHYSICAL PRESENCE IN THIS STATE, THE RETAILER
THAT DOES NOT COLLECT COLORADO SALES TAX IS PRESUMED TO BE DOING
BUSINESS IN THIS STATE. FOR PURPOSES OF THIS SUBPARAGRAPH (II),
"CONTROLLED GROUP OF CORPORATIONS" HAS THE SAME MEANING AS SET
FORTH IN SECTION 1563 (a) OF THE FEDERAL "INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF
1986", AS AMENDED, AND "COMPONENT MEMBER" HAS THE SAME MEANING
AS SET FORTH IN SECTION 1563 (b) OF THE FEDERAL "INTERNAL REVENUE
CODE OF 1986", AS AMENDED. THIS PRESUMPTION MAY BE REBUTTED BY
PROOF THAT DURING THE CALENDAR YEAR IN QUESTION, THE COMPONENT
MEMBER THAT IS A RETAILER WITH PHYSICAL PRESENCE IN THIS STATE DID
NOT ENGAGE IN ANY CONSTITUTIONALLY SUFFICIENT SOLICITATION IN THIS
STATE ON BEHALF OF THE RETAILER THAT DOES NOT COLLECT COLORADO
SALES TAX.
(8) "Retailer" or "vendor" means a person doing a retail business IN
THIS STATE, known to the trade and public as such, and selling to the user
or consumer, and not for resale.
SECTION 2. 39-21-112, Colorado Revised Statutes, is amended
BY THE ADDITION OF A NEW SUBSECTION to read:
39-21-112. Duties and powers of executive director. (3.5) (a) IF
ANY RETAILER THAT DOES NOT COLLECT COLORADO SALES TAX REFUSES
VOLUNTARILY TO FURNISH ANY OF THE INFORMATION SPECIFIED IN
SUBSECTION (1) OF THIS SECTION WHEN REQUESTED BY THE EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE OR HIS OR HER EMPLOYEE,
AGENT, OR REPRESENTATIVE, THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BY SUBPOENA
ISSUED UNDER THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S HAND, MAY REQUIRE THE
PAGE 2-HOUSE BILL 10-1193
ATTENDANCE OF THE RETAILER AND THE PRODUCTION BY HIM OR HER OF
ANY OF THE FOREGOING INFORMATION IN THE RETAILER'S POSSESSION AND
MAY ADMINISTER AN OATH TO HIM OR HER AND TAKE HIS OR HER
TESTIMONY. IF THE RETAILER FAILS OR REFUSES TO RESPOND TO SAID
SUBPOENA AND GIVE TESTIMONY, THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR MAY APPLY TO
ANY JUDGE OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF COLORADO TO
ENFORCE SUCH SUBPOENA BY ANY APPROPRIATE ORDER, INCLUDING, IF
APPROPRIATE, AN ATTACHMENT AGAINST THE RETAILER AS FOR CONTEMPT,
AND UPON HEARING, SAID JUDGE HAS, FOR THE PURPOSE OF ENFORCING
OBEDIENCE TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF SAID SUBPOENA, POWER TO MAKE
SUCH ORDER AS, IN HIS OR HER DISCRETION, HE OR SHE DEEMS CONSISTENT
WITH THE LAW FOR PUNISHMENT OF CONTEMPTS.
(b) FOR PURPOSES OF THIS SUBSECTION (3.5), "RETAILER" SHALL
HAVE THE SAME MEANING AS SET FORTH IN SECTION 39-26-102 (8).
(c) (I) EACH RETAILER THAT DOES NOT COLLECT COLORADO SALES
TAX SHALL NOTIFY COLORADO PURCHASERS THAT SALES OR USE TAX IS DUE
ON CERTAIN PURCHASES MADE FROM THE RETAILER AND THAT THE STATE OF
COLORADO REQUIRES THE PURCHASER TO FILE A SALES OR USE TAX RETURN.
(II) FAILURE TO PROVIDE THE NOTICE REQUIRED IN SUBPARAGRAPH
(I) OF THIS PARAGRAPH (c) SHALL SUBJECT THE RETAILER TO A PENALTY OF
FIVE DOLLARS FOR EACH SUCH FAILURE, UNLESS THE RETAILER SHOWS
REASONABLE CAUSE FOR SUCH FAILURE.
(d) (I) (A) EACH RETAILER THAT DOES NOT COLLECT COLORADO
SALES TAX SHALL SEND NOTIFICATION TO ALL COLORADO PURCHASERS BY
JANUARY 31 OF EACH YEAR SHOWING SUCH INFORMATION AS THE
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE SHALL REQUIRE BY RULE AND THE
TOTAL AMOUNT PAID BY THE PURCHASER FOR COLORADO PURCHASES MADE
FROM THE RETAILER IN THE PREVIOUS CALENDAR YEAR. SUCH NOTIFICATION SHALL INCLUDE, IF AVAILABLE, THE DATES OF PURCHASES, THE AMOUNTS OF EACH PURCHASE, AND THE CATEGORY OF THE PURCHASE, INCLUDING, IF KNOWN BY THE RETAILER, WHETHER THE PURCHASE IS EXEMPT OR NOT EXEMPT FROM TAXATION. THE NOTIFICATION SHALL STATE THAT THE STATE OF COLORADO REQUIRES A SALES OR USE TAX RETURN TO BE FILED AND SALES OR USE TAX PAID ON CERTAIN COLORADO PURCHASES MADE BY THE PURCHASER FROM THE RETAILER.

 This last paragraph, to me seems to be aimed at browbeating the retailer with such cumbersome rules in order to prove that no sales tax should be collected that (it is hoped) they will lie down and acquiesce so they can keep their business alive.  I don't know if this bill is or is not constitutional (Amazon maintains it is not), but just from reading the language of the bill it seems like the expectations of the state legislators are still not cut and dried and easy to understand.  Hmmm, taking a few lessons from the IRS?

Amazon's position on a Colorado sales tax law

When I created this Blog, I immediately decided to
monetize it. I enrolled it in AdSense, then I
tried to become an Amazon.com Associate. I found
out Amazon doesn't accept enrollees from the State
of Colorado. When I inquired as to why, I received
this email which I quote in its entirety:

Hello,

I apologize for any inconvenience. Because you are
located in Colorado, we are unable to accept your
application to join the Associates Program. The
Colorado government recently enacted a law to impose
sales tax regulations on online retailers. The regu-
lations are burdensome and no other state has similar
rules. The new regulations do not require online re-
tailers to collect sales tax. Instead, they are clear-
ly intended to increase the compliance burden to a
point where online retailers will be induced to "volun-
tarily" collect Colorado sales tax -- a course we won't
take.

We and many others strongly opposed this legislation,
known as HB 10-1193, but it was enacted anyway. Re-
grettably, as a result of the new law, we decided to
stop advertising through Associates based in Colorado.
We plan to continue to sell to Colorado residents,
however, and will advertise through other channels,
including through Associates based in other states.

There is a right way for Colorado to pursue its
revenue goals, but this new law is a wrong way.
As we repeatedly communicated to Colorado legislators,
including those who sponsored and supported the new law,
we are not opposed to collecting sales tax within a
constitutionally-permissible system applied even-handedly.

The US Supreme Court has defined what would be constitu-
tional, and if Colorado would repeal the current law or
follow the constitutional approach to collection, we
would welcome the opportunity to reinstate Colorado-based
Associates. You may express your views of Colorado's new
law to members of the General Assembly and to Governor Ritter,
who signed the bill.

I have yet to read the contents of HB 10-1193. Remember,
I dislike research.However, when it could potentially
affect my pocketbook, it does make me rather curious.
My next post will be about this bill and what is says
that ticked off Amazon and probably a few former
Colorado Amazon Associates.