Wednesday, October 29, 2014

Record Number of Americans Renouncing Citizenship Because of Overseas Tax Burdens

Record Number of Americans Renouncing Citizenship Because of Overseas Tax Burdens

ABC News 
Frustration over taxes is as American as apple pie, but some U.S. citizens are becoming so overwhelmed by the Internal Revenue Service that they’ve decided to stop being Americans altogether.
According to new Treasury Department data, 776 Americans renounced their citizenship over three months ending in September for a total of 2,353 renunciations this year, on pace to surpass the previous year’s record number of 2,999 renouncers.
Experts say this growing number of ex-Americans is a side effect of new tax regulations within the last few years intended to crack down on tax evasion but that also make it harder for all citizens abroad to conduct even routine financial transactions. Chief among them is the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, or FATCA, passed by Congress in 2010 and in effect since July 2014. FATCA aimed to cut down on the use of secret offshore accounts by requiring foreign banks to report all Americans with accounts over $50,000 or face a 30 percent surcharge on the accounts.
Marylouise Serrato, the executive director of American Citizens Abroad, an advocacy group, said the measure ended up hurting otherwise law-abiding citizens living in foreign countries, of which the most recent estimates say there are 6.32 million. Serrato cited a 2014 poll conducted by the group Democrats Abroad that found an average of 12.7 percent of applicants for various foreign financial services were denied by their banks.
“The problem is not paying taxes or not wanting to pay taxes, the problem is that they’re having an inability to find financial providers and people who are still willing to deal with them as American citizens,” Serrato said.
There’s also the problem of so-called “accidental Americans,” who were born in the United States but have lived most of their lives inCanada. American tax law mandates that citizens pay U.S. taxes regardless of the country in which they reside, meaning that in the last five years, when the U.S. government started cracking down on foreign tax evaders, many Canadians born in the U.S. realized for the first time that they might owe the IRS back taxes.
Among them was one man who was born in the U.S. but was brought to Canada right after birth, who insisted on anonymity because he is still in the process of renouncing his American citizenship – which he didn’t even realize he had until, on a 2011 trip south of the US-Canada border, he was told he needed an American passport in order to re-enter the United States.
He was eventually allowed to pass, but upon returning home realized the agent who let him through was correct. “Sure enough, if you are considered a US citizen you can’t travel into the US using anything other than a US passport,” he said.
He learned he could either declare five years of back taxes to the IRS under a new voluntary disclosure program, which he said would have cost him thousands of dollars in legal and accounting fees, or renounce his American citizenship, which so far has taken him more than a year and several trips to his nearest consulate to do.
“I don’t break any laws,” he said. “It’s an accident of birth.”
And when he does renounce his American citizenship, the Canada resident will also have to pay a onetime fee of $2,350 for what the State Department says is the cost of processing a citizenship renunciation.
That fee is more than a five-fold increase from what the cost was before September 2014, when renouncing one’s American citizenship cost $450.
A State Department spokesperson said the fee was increased to reflect the real, unsubsidized cost of providing the service. “In addition to the work done at the embassy or consulate, the case comes back to the department for a final review and decision, which involves additional resources. A renunciation is a serious decision, and we need to be certain that the person renouncing fully understands the consequences,” the spokesperson said via email.
Serrato’s group American Citizens Abroad recommends that Congress add a “same-country exception” to FATCA, which would exempt citizens living in a foreign country from paying a U.S. tax for financial services from a bank in the same country where they live. The intended goal would be for FATCA to affect only the groups it intended to target: potential tax evaders who live in one country but have foreign accounts in others.
“This is a community that’s not tax evaders and living the high life. There’s a real need, if the US is going to be a global player and we want Americans overseas selling products, that people need to have certain tools in order to do that,” she said.

Kwitch Yer Bitchin' : --Police State Targets Dissidents: Government To “Impose Extreme Disruption Orders On Individuals”

The Rumor Mill News Reading Room 
Kwitch Yer Bitchin' : --Police State Targets Dissidents: Government To “Impose Extreme Disruption Orders On Individuals”
Posted By: Watchman
Date: Wednesday, 29-Oct-2014 16:34:21

The battle for hearts and minds is on and the elite are getting fed up with citizen proles who believe it a right to speak freely and openly about their ideologies and criticisms of government policies.
Their attempts to control the agenda and conversation have repeatedly been met with protests, both online and off, as traditional mainstream audiences migrate by the millions to alternative media and citizen journalism.
But this obvious threat to the establishment’s status quo won’t be allowed to go on much longer. A recent interview with the head of England’s Ministry of Home Security, the British counterpart of America’s Department of Homeland Security, shows just how dangerous open thought and free speech are.
Home Secretary Theresa May explains what the freedom-loving people of the United Kingdom can come to expect in the very near future if their online commentary is deemed to be hatred or extremist thought by the government. And this, as you’ll see below, isn’t just about the UK, which has often been used as a petri dish for global regulators who want to see what does or doesn’t work on a smaller scale before introducing their policies and legalese in the United States.
The police would also be given new powers to apply to a court to impose extreme disruption orders on individuals, using the same criteria.
This could result in those targeted being stopped from taking part in public protests, from being present at all in certain public locations, from associating with named people, from using of conventional broadcast media and from “obtaining any position of authority in an institution where they would have influence over vulnerable individuals or children”.
Breach of the restrictions – which would be time limited – would be a criminal offence. (BBC)
An interview of Theresa May discussing how these new policies will keep Brits “safe and secure” shows the Secretary repeating the same talking points over and over in defense of her position. When questioned about whether innocent people just speaking their minds could get caught up in the extremist web, May goes to her default answer:
What we are looking at is a situation where believe we need to take powers necessary to be able to deal with those people who are preaching hatred on our streets and that is an extremism which can lead others into violent acts.
Of course not all extremists are violent and not all violence comes out of that extremism. But there is a link. There is a thread between this. And I believe we need to be able to deal with that if we are going to do the job we want to do, which is keeping people safe and secure.
(Video via Steve Quayle and All News Pipeline)
But such things like supplanting political thought or the free expression of views only happens elsewhere. Such ludicrous ideas could never be introduced here in America.
Unless of course you consider that a bi-partisan Congressional panel is now looking to impose similar restrictions on free speech right here in the good ol’ USA:
A key Democrat on the Federal Election Commission called for burdensome new rules on Internet-based campaigning, prompting the Republican chairman to warn that Democrats want to regulate online political sites and even news media like the Drudge Report.
Ravel’s statement suggests that she would regulate right-leaning groups like America Rising that posts anti-Democrat YouTube videos on its website.
FEC Chairman Lee E. Goodman, a Republican, said if regulation extends that far, then anybody who writes a political blog, runs a politically active news site or even chat room could be regulated. He added that funny internet campaigns like “Obama Girl,” and “Jib Jab” would also face regulations. (Washington Examiner)
Make no mistake. Such regulatory and legislative policy would not only target conservative web sites. Every single American citizen would be subject to its rules.
Want to post a video with political undertones? Banned.
Did you mention a political candidate’s name in your social media post? Banned.
Did you send an email to friends and family promoting a particular idea that runs contrary to the traditionally accepted government policy? Banned.
Are you wearing a T-shirt that upsets the politically correct crowd? Banned.
And not just banned. In the United Kingdom you would face criminal repercussions. In the United States, as noted in the Patriot Act and the National Defense Authorization Acts, you could literally be swept up by militarized government SWAT teams and held indefinitely without charge or trial.
A person engages in domestic terrorism if they do an act “”dangerous to human life”” that is a violation of the criminal laws of a state or the United States, if the act appears to be intended to: (i) intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping. Additionally, the acts have to occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States and if they do not, may be regarded as international terrorism.
Source: USA Patriot Act
We can see by the broad language how easily one can be accused of “intimidation” or “coercion.” In the end it really just boils down to be a matter of interpretation, and you could bet your bottom dollar that Federal prosecutors and secret terrorism courts will ensure that you fall well within the Patriot Act should you step out of line.
In a recent piece penned by Paul Joseph Watson we can see these new regulations already taking shape through a redefining of terms such as “suspicious activity.”
Purchasing train tickets with cash, exiting a train before or after other passengers, or appearing calm or nervous are all examples of behavior that Amtrak employees have been told to report as “suspicious activity.”
A document entitled Guidelines for Amtrak Customer Service Employees, which was obtained by the ACLU after an FOIA request, lists a number of different behaviors that are “indicative of criminal activity” and should immediately be reported to law enforcement personnel by Amtrak ticket agents.
Are you calm when purchasing a ticket? That could mean you’re a terrorist.
What about nervous? Do you look at little nervous? Yup, that probably makes you a terrorist, too.
This is what the free people of the United States, the United Kingdom and the rest of the world are facing from entrenched elite financial, economic and geo-political organizations who mean to control every aspect of our lives.
And be assured, they’re not war-gaming civil unrest scenarios and stockpiling billions of rounds of ammunition just so they can play target practice.
Many Americans see what’s coming and are taking steps to prepare for a completely different world. But most don’t even have a clue.
Your views and ideas make you an enemy of the state.
In fact, the United Nations Charter on Human Rights addresses people like you, and despite the fact that our founders forbade international treaties for this very purpose, our government is a long-time proponent of these ideals and policies. The Charter talks a big game with, among other things, freedom of expression, the right to live peacefully, and protections to ensure you can’t be detained indefinitely without trial until, that is, you reach Article 29, Section 3:
These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
So, as long as you tow the party line you can enjoy your “freedom.”
For those that don’t, one day soon these international and domestic legislative implements will give them the pretext to come looking for you, as well as those who, as Theresa May stated, have a “thread” that might be connected to you.
http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/police-statetargets-dissidents-government-powers-to-impose-extreme-disruption-orders-on-individuals_10272014 

BREAKING: Obama Makes Move Against the Bundy Ranch… This Is Tyranny

BREAKING: Obama Makes Move Against the Bundy Ranch… This Is Tyranny

Earlier this year, the topic of federal government control over public land in Western states came to the forefront, as all eyes in America focussed on the Bundy Ranch in southern Nevada, and the heavy-handed, militarized response of federal regulatory agencies to unpaid grazing fees.
Thanks to an immense effort by protestors and supporters, backed up by armed citizen militias, the tyrannical feds backed down from the stand-off they created.
But nobody thought the issue was entirely over, especially after Nevada Senator Harry Reid threatened as much, saying “something will happen” to the Bundy’s and their ranch.
That something may be happening now, as the feds prepare to seize control of millions of acres of land in southern Nevada, placing it off limits to people, according to a post on theBundy Ranch’s Facebook page.
An official notice was recently released by the Federal Registry, proclaiming that upwards of 3 million acres of land in southern Nevada would be declared Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) and placed off limits to virtually all human activity.
Some of the restrictions placed upon ACEC land include closing roads and trails to all motorized traffic; closing camping, hunting, and recreation sites; closing all livestock grazing and water access; and even restricting hiking and horseback riding in the area.
This declaration wasn’t a piece of legislation passed by Congress, nor was it agreed upon by the state, or the people, of Nevada.  It was simply decided upon by nameless, unaccountable bureaucrats in Washington, D.C., and imposed against the will of the people.
The Bundy Ranch believes that this move by the feds is in direct retaliation against them and the people of southern Nevada for their stand-off against the Bureau of Land Management.  Although they have no direct proof, they point out that all of the newly declared ACECs are located in southern Nevada, virtually surrounding the Bundy Ranch by off-limits federally-controlled land.
For their part, the Bundy’s say this federal tyranny won’t stop them from continuing to ranch and graze on the same land their family has used for well over 100 years.  They are asking for an outcry from the states and the people so loud  that it can no longer be ignored by the feds.
The states need to stop allowing this type of thing to occur.  It is time for the states to reclaim sovereignty over their own territories and take back control of public lands under the thumb of the feds. States could then either hold it themselves or return it to the people, to whom it really belongs.
Please share this on Facebook and Twitter if you agree that the federal seizure of “public” land and placing it completely off-limits to the “public” needs to stop immediately, and the states must take back control of their land.
People Are Reading These Articles Right Now:

HOUSTON MAYOR DROPS DEMAND FOR PASTOR 'SPEECHES'

  • Text smaller
  • Text bigger
130822212147-ctw-annise-parker-houston-mayor-00000309-story-top
Houston’s lesbian mayor, inundated by hundreds of Bibles being sent to her office and coast-to-coast criticism, has decided to withdraw her subpoenas of “sermons” and other communications belonging to five area pastors who oppose her “nondiscrimination” ordinance that allows “gender-confused” people to use their choice of restrooms.
Mayor Annise Parker, who once admitted the ordinance was all about her, made the announcement at a press conference early Wednesday.
WND broke the story two weeks ago of the city’s subpoenas in a lawsuit against the “bathroom bill.”
Parker explained she was “directing the city legal department to withdraw the subpoenas issued to the five Houston pastors who delivered the petitions, the anti-HERO petitions, to the city of Houston and who indicated that they were responsible for the overall petition effort.”
The five pastors, however, are not party to the lawsuit against the city, which charges the mayor and city attorney arbitrarily nullified a successful petition effort to force the city council to reconsider its approval of the ordinance or to put it before voters.
Parker continued:”It is extremely important to me to protect our Equal Rights Ordinance from repeal, and it is extremely important to me to make sure that every Houstonian knows that their lives are valid and protected and acknowledged. We are going to continue to vigorously defend our ordinance against repeal efforts.”
A trial in the case is scheduled for January.
Parker’s ordinance was adopted by the council in May over the objections of multiple organizations of pastors and leaders. The opponents then collected more than 50,000 signatures. In the validation process, the city secretary stopped counting after reaching about 19,000, determining that the threshold level of about 17,000 had been reached.
The city attorney then stepped in and declared many thousands of signatures were invalid.
In response to the subpoenas, opponents have urged pastors across the country to send the mayor copies of their sermons and other concerned citizens to send Bibles.
Family Research Council President Tony Perkins, whose organization will hold a simulcast rally from Houston on Sunday on the issue, said, “Standing together across the nation, Christians have sent a strong message to Mayor Parker.”
Perkins said that while he and his allies “are encouraged by this evidence that the mayor is responding to pressure and withdrawing her unconstitutional subpoenas, this is about far more than subpoenas.”
“As we have stated since the beginning of this intrusion into the private affairs of Houston churches; this is not about subpoenas, this is not about sermons, it is not even about biblical teaching on sexual immorality, it is about the political intimidation and the bullying by Mayor Parker that continues,” he said.
He will serve as host for the I Stand Sunday event.
The event also will feature former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, Duck Dynasty’s Phil and Al Robertson, the five Houston pastors who were targeted, Ronnie Floyd of the Southern Baptist Convention and others.
It will be simulcast into more than 2,500 churches and home groups nationwide.
“Despite the fact that the citizens of Houston gathered over 50,000 signed petitions in 30 days, which is 30,000 more than required by the city charter, the mayor has refused to allow the people of Houston to vote on her unfair special rights ordinance that discriminates against religious freedom within the city and endangers citizens by declaring that public bathrooms can no longer be limited on the basis of a person’s actual biological sex,” Perkins said.
“The citizens of Houston have a right to vote, and Mayor Parker has denied them that right. America must see the totalitarianism that accompanies the redefinition of marriage and human sexuality, which results in citizens being denied their most fundamental rights,” he said. “This Sunday night, thousands of Christians from across the nation will join ‘I Stand Sunday’ to support the pastors and Christians in Houston, Texas and their fundamental rights of religious freedom, freedom of speech and the right to petition their government.”
Other speakers will be Grace Community Church Senior Pastor Steve Riggle, Vietnamese Baptist Church Senior Pastor Khanh Huynh, Dave Welch of the Houston Pastors Council, Iglesia Rios de Aceite Pastor Hernan Castano, Magda Hermida Ministries founder Magda Hermida, MacGregor Palm Community Baptist Church pastor Willie Davis and Second Baptist Church Pastor Ed Young.
Parker had said she wanted copies of sermons or other communications related to homosexuality and the ordinance. Amid widespread public outcry, she changed the request from “sermons” to “speeches.”
The Alliance Defending Freedom, which has been assisting the Houston pastors, called the mayor’s decision to withdraw the subpoenas a triumph.
ADF Senior Legal Counsel Erik Stanley said: “The mayor really had no choice but to withdraw these subpoenas, which should never have been served in the first place. The entire nation – -voices from every point of the spectrum left to right – recognize the city’s action as a gross abuse of power. We are gratified that the First Amendment rights of the pastors have triumphed over government overreach and intimidation. The First Amendment protects the right of pastors to be free from government intimidation and coercion of this sort.”
He said, however, the subpoenas “were only one element of this disgraceful episode.”
“The scandal began with another abuse of power when the city of Houston arbitrarily threw out the valid signatures of thousands of voters. The city did this all because it is bent on pushing through its deeply unpopular ordinance at any cost,” Stanley said.
“The subpoena threat has been withdrawn but the mayor and the city should now do the right thing and allow the people of the Houston to decide whether to repeal the ordinance.”
WND reported earlier this week the city’s attorneys were insisting the ordinance critics have no claim because their petition was never “validated.”
The argument, however, contradicted the sworn testimony of the city secretary, who has the authority to validate the signatures and determined the petition drive met the minimum requirement.
A city brief to the state Supreme Court was filed by attorney Lynne Liberato in the case.
The coalition asked the state Supreme Court to step in and order the city to follow its charter, which specifies that ordinances opposed by a certain number of residents shall be halted.
But in arguing that the state Supreme Court should keep out of the case, the city said that “because the city secretary did not validate the referendum petition, the second step of the referendum processes – the city council’s ‘immediate’ reconsideration of the ordinance or popular vote – was never triggered.”
The city’s lawyers argued the city charter “does not require respondents to act, immediately or otherwise, on an unsuccessful referendum petition.”
However, the city secretary, Anna Russell, who has served Houston for more than four decades, was asked by plaintiffs’ attorney Andy Taylor in a deposition about validation of the signatures.
Russell had explained it was her understanding “that the [city] charter provides that the city secretary determine the number of qualified voters who sign the petition.”
Taylor then asked: “And based on that understanding, you did that; and the result of your work was that 17,846 signatures had been validated. And that was more than the minimum number necessary, correct?”
“That’s correct,” she replied
‘Head fake’
Taylor told WND in an interview that the city’s filing was a “head fake” to try to keep the state Supreme Court from intervening and ordering the city to follow its charter and act on the petition.
He said the city essentially brought up three points – that the Supreme Court doesn’t have jurisdiction because a trial is scheduled in January, that there are disagreements a trial judge needs to decide first and the case needs to run its course through the system because of arguments of time, signatures and other issues.
But, he said, the charter requires immediate action on such petitions, not a leisurely trip through the court system.
He said the violations are ongoing and need to be addressed.
And he said there are no real issues to decide, since the city secretary, as required in the city charter, ruled there were enough signatures on the petition.
In fact, she noted that she only looked through about one-third of the signatures submitted, because the minimum already had been reached, and there was no point in spending more time.
It wasn’t until after she had prepared her report, she said in the deposition, that the city attorney came to her and told her that he had invalidated most of the signatures and that she ultimately revised her report to add that statement.
Taylor told WND that Russell also, in a memo about the dispute, had used the word “certify” regarding the petition signatures.
In her official report about the petition, Russell said, “As of July 27, 2014, the number of qualified city of Houston voters who signed the petition had been verified with a margin of error.”
It was only days later that City Attorney David Feldman instructed her to add to her report the statement: “According to the city attorney’s office and reviewed by the city secretary the analysis of the city attorney’s office, 2,750 pages containing 16,010 signatures do not contain sufficient acknowledgment as required by the charter. Therefore, according to the city attorney’s office only 2,449 pages containing 15,249 signatures can lawfully be considered toward the signatures required.”
Civil rights commissioner to mayor: Back down
WND also reported a member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights wrote to Parker, urging her to back down from her demand for copies of pastors “speeches.”
“I write to express my concern regarding subpoenas requesting extensive information from pastors who are involved in the Equal Rights Ordinance Referendum,” wrote Commissioner Peter Kirsanow. “These discovery requests threaten to have a chilling effect on religious and political speech that is protected by the First Amendment.”
WND reported Rush Limbaugh, America’s top-rated radio host, described Parker’s actions as “vile.”
“I think what that mayor in Houston has done may be one of the most vile, filthy, blatant violations of the Constitution that I have seen,” Limbaugh said Wednesday on his national broadcast.
“And I, for the life of me, cannot figure out why law authorities are not pursuing this. I cannot understand it.”
The mayor’s contact information:
Mayor Annise D. Parker
City of Houston
P.O. Box 1562 Houston, Texas 77251
Phone: (713) 837-0311
Email: mayor@houstontx.gov

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/10/houston-mayor-takes-final-action-on-demand-for-sermons/#7d6A3ixwYCLr70A6.99