yamaaki

[yamaaki]

Liberals lose their minds as Tom Homan unveils new deportation plan

PERFECT PLANNING

'You knew you were in the country illegally and chose to have a child. So you put your family in that position,' Homan said as he defended using detention centers.

[yamaaki]

[yamaaki]

[yamaaki]

November 5th!

[yamaaki]

Have a great day and don't forget to Dance 💫

[yamaaki]

"In The News" 🤔

[yamaaki]

Epic answer by Morgan Freeman 🤔

[yamaaki]

Greg Reese Report 👇

The human heart is NOT a pump 🤔

[yamaaki]

[yamaaki]

[yamaaki]

The uneducated sheep are sheep for a reason. They bleat for the media.

[yamaaki]

[yamaaki]

Oops! Listen closely - You can hear her earpiece... picked up on the LiveStream.

Who is REALLY in charge here?? Who is feeding her lines at the podium??🤔

[yamaaki]

The Biden administration has demanded trillions in tax hikes on the American people despite President Joe Biden’s campaign pledge not to raise taxes on anyone making less than $400,000. 

New research shows that the “Protecting the Right to Organize” (PRO) Act violates Biden’s tax pledge by raising taxes on 7.7 million Americans, 96 percent of whom make less than $400,000. 

There are plenty of reasons to oppose the PRO Act, which rewrites American labor law in favor of union bosses and at the expense of workers. It nullifies right-to-work laws in 27 states nationwide, forcing workers across the country to choose between putting food on the table or kicking up dues to a union boss. It forces employers to disclose sensitive employee contact information to organizers during union drives, opening workers up to harassment at all hours of the day and night. 

Thanks to a new study from Americans for Tax Reform, the Tholos Foundation and Beacon Hill Institute, we now know that the PRO Act is a massive tax hike on millions of Americans. How is the PRO Act a violation of Biden’s $400,000 tax pledge? 

The PRO Act contains a stringent three-part “ABC” test to determine if a worker is an independent contractor or a W-2 employee. Under the PRO Act, businesses must prove that a contractor is [A] “free from control or direction,” [B] doing duties “outside the usual course of work of the hiring entity,” and [C] “customarily engaged in an independently established…business of the same nature of the work performed.”

Under part C, an individual must be providing services to more than one client in order to be considered an independent contractor. The practical effect of the ABC test is to force the mass reclassification of millions of independent contractors into W-2 employees. This would damage every Uber driver in the country.

Workers have seen this movie before. California enacted an ABC test as part of Assembly Bill 5, which Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law in January 2019. The test was so reviled that nearly 59 percent of Californians voted to implement an exemption for rideshare drivers in November 2020. 

Rideshare drivers aren’t the only Americans that work as independent contractors. Court stenographers, florists, ballroom dancers, auctioneers, doctors, dentists, financial professionals and veterinarians all work as independent contractors. 

The study uses IRS data from a Treasury study to calculate taxes on a sample of independent contractors. The sample comprises the four different types of independent contractors most likely to be reclassified if the PRO Act became law. The population size is 13.81 million independent contractors with 1099 income, with a sample size of 1 percent. The study assumes that both the independent contractor and the employee take the standard deduction and computes the tax differences from there. 

The results are striking. Based on the sample, a nationwide ABC test would lead to 7,749,443 workers paying more in tax as W-2 employees than independent contractors. It is important to note that independent contractors already pay taxes — the reclassification would lead to them paying a different mix of taxes resulting in a higher overall tax burden. 

As the study notes: “BHI found that 56 percent of the independent contractors most likely to be reclassified would pay more tax as employees, which we estimate to be about 7.7 million taxpayers. We estimate that 96 percent, or 7.5 million, of those reclassified taxpayers who would pay more tax, make less than $400,000.”

The study uses the best available data from 2016 to reach these conclusions. Due to the rising popularity of the gig economy and workers turning to side hustles to make ends meet during the COVID-19 pandemic, the real number is likely much higher. According to Upwork’s “Freelance Forward: 2021” study, an estimated 59 million Americans engage in some form of freelancing. Using that number, the study assumes that 33 million Americans would pay more in tax if reclassified as W-2 employees. 

The PRO Act has been one of Biden’s top priorities despite the fact that it has yet to move in the Senate. The PRO Act’s ABC test is a clear tax hike on millions of Americans, 96 percent of whom make less than $400,000 per year. If Biden is serious about upholding his tax pledge, a central part of his presidential campaign, he should kick the PRO Act and the ABC test to the curb.

[yamaaki]

Bay Area tech worker admits to stealing and selling MacBooks worth $535,800 http://dlvr.it/T27MnY #RealEstateAgentElkGrove #RealtorElkGrove http://dlvr.it/T27Mnp http://dlvr.it/T27Mnr http://dlvr.it/T27Mns

[yamaaki]

US stock market regulator sues Elon Musk for refusing to explain Twitter purchase

The US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has sued Elon Musk to force him to testify about his acquisition of Twitter last year, with which he could have committed stock fraud. The CEO of Tesla also did not attend the summons on September 15 in which he had to give a statement as part of the SEC investigation into his purchase of shares in this social network, now known as X, which ended up being closed with a agreement valued at around 41,708 million euros.

"Musk's continued refusal to comply with the SEC's administrative subpoena is hindering and delaying the investigation (…) Consequently, the SEC now asks the court to compel Musk to appear," the regulator's lawyers argued before a California court. Musk's legal representatives had assured that he did not appear because the court headquarters in San Francisco (California, USA) where he was summoned was not "the appropriate place to testify."

However, the lawsuit details that different dates were even proposed for a meeting at the SEC offices located in Fort Worth (Texas, USA), the closest to Musk's current residence, located in Austin (Texas). . "These good faith efforts were met with Musk's general refusal to appear to testify," the SEC stressed in the lawsuit.

In addition, this Monday federal Judge Andrew Carter, belonging to the Southern District Court of New York, denied the billionaire businessman's request to dismiss a class action lawsuit in which he is accused of defrauding Twitter investors before purchasing the company. Musk allegedly violated federal regulations by communicating his previous 5% ownership stake in this company, which would have allowed him to have inside information when undertaking the acquisition of the social network.

The shareholders who have sued the SpaceX executive said this week that the businessman would have saved more than $200 million with his strategy to increase his stake in Twitter from 5% to 9.2% and that they sold their shares at prices " artificially lower" due to this maneuver. Twitter shares rose 27% with Musk's purchase of Twitter in April 2022, going from $39.31 to $49.97.

Musk's lawyers have argued that, as CEO of Tesla and SpaceX among other companies, he was then "one of the busiest people on the planet" and that his failure to comply with SEC rules by not disclosing the stake he already had on Twitter, it went "unnoticed."

[yamaaki]

Nancy Pelosi Military Tribunal, 👇 Part I

(Due to the length of this article, I am separating it into parts. I will try to get the 2nd part published this evening.)

Thirteen hours over two days is how long it took Vice Adm. Darse E. Crandall of the United States Navy Judge Advocate General’s Corps to present evidence against former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, whom a 3-officer panel found guilty of treason, seditious conspiracy, and conspiracy to commit murder late Thursday afternoon.

In an opening statement, the admiral said JAG and the Office of Military Commissions had copious evidence linking Pelosi to crimes dating back to 1987 but, for time’s sake, would focus only on her most recent and egregious offenses, starting with a 2016 murder-for-hire plot to assassinate then-presidential candidate Donald J. Trump. He said JAG was aware of many nefarious schemes to end Trump’s life–all of which were bungled or foiled–and had incontrovertible evidence tying Pelosi to four.  Moreover, Adm. Crandall told the panel he would prove beyond reasonable doubt that Pelosi in 2018 hatched a plot to kidnap Barron Trump to force Donald Trump’s resignation, so Pence would be the new president. Pelosi, Vice Adm. Crandall said, had even considered having Melania or Ivanka murdered in hopes of forcing a tormented Trump from office.

Furthermore, he said Pelosi shared responsibility with the late Gavin Newsom in locking down California and enforcing draconian vaccine mandates that sickened or killed countless residents of the Golden State. Pelosi’s “Covid crimes,” he intoned, violated the Constitution of the United States; they affronted the very people she had sworn to serve. But as persons withered and died—not from Covid but from the clot shot —and families grieved, Pelosi grew in wealth and power, immeasurably so. When she wasn’t wielding an iron fist, she was clutching the bottle, Vice Adm. Crandall said, and informed the panel witness statements and Pelosi’s own documents would give credence to JAG’s allegations.

“This woman isn’t even vaccinated,” Vice Adm. Crandall said, pointing at Pelosi. “We know this because we pulled her blood, and we can test. She eschewed her own mandates. Why? Because she knew the vaccines were dangerous, and we’ll prove that.”

When offered a chance to give her own opening statement, Pelosi, appearing sans counsel, pursed her lips and kept quiet. She was disheveled and seemed distraught, her shriveled, bony fingers visibly trembling as bloodshot eyes scanned the court.

Vice Admiral Crandall introduced a witness, a 29-year-old Latin male named Xavier Ramirez, who, having been sworn in, described himself as Pelosi’s former gigolo and “boy toy.” He testified under oath that he had regularly “entertained” Pelosi between April and July of 2016, usually at upscale hotels in the San Francisco area. Mr. Ramirez said he hadn’t documented each meeting, but guessed he saw Pelosi 15 times.

“I hope you were paid well, Mr. Ramirez,” Vice Adm. Crandall quipped.

“Very well,” the witness replied.

“I’ve never seen this man before in my life,” Pelosi shouted at the top of her lungs, her voice gravelly and hoarse.

The admiral reprimanded her outburst, saying she could either exercise decorum or be physically restrained.

“Mr. Ramirez, when we first spoke, you mentioned a specific meeting on a certain date. If you would, would you please repeat what you said, to the best of your recollection,” Vice Adm. Crandall said.

“It was July 21, 2016. Nancy was in a bad way because Mr. Donald Trump just accepted the Republican nomination. Trump this, Trump that was all she talked about. She paid me, so I listened. She was drinking, of course. Nancy likes to drink. She is a big drinker, a habitual drinker, to say it in a nice way. So, the more she drinks, the more she talks—”

“—While we appreciate your colorful tale, could you please be briefer, come to the point,” Vice Adm. Crandall said.

“The point, yes; she said she wanted to kill Donald Trump,” the witness said.

“Kill or have killed?”

“Well, have killed; she certainly wasn’t doing it herself. Nancy asked me do I know someone, because I am Cuban, I must know someone, she told me. And there I am thinking to myself why I should know a hitman just because I’m Cuban. I thought maybe she joked and asked if she was kidding, but, no, Nancy was dead serious. She offered me $25k cash in advance to find someone. Nancy said if I did, and it got done, I’d get $225K more and the person who kill Trump get $250K. Then she laughs and says to me if Trump has too much protection, she can do the daughter—you know, tall, pretty blonde, Ivanka.”

Vice Admiral asked if Mr. Ramirez had seen or handled the $25,000.

“I saw it come out of her purse. Banded stacks $1000 each. I saw it, I touched it, but I did not take. I told her, ‘You’re Nancy Pelosi, you must have powerful friends. I want nothing to do with this,’ and she tells me, and this I remember very well, ‘This time it has to be an outside party.’ I tell her flatly that’s not why I am here,” Mr. Ramirez explained.

“And I assume, Mr. Ramirez, the ‘services’ you performed for the defendant didn’t cost 25 grand,” Vice Adm. Crandall said.

Mr. Ramirez laughed. “No, I wish, but much less, and she paid me in advance.”

“Did you bring your concerns to the Secret Service, to the police?”

“Are you crazy? No. If she could kill Trump, I could get killed like a fly on the wall. When I left, it was last time I saw her,” Mr. Ramirez said.

“Yet the defendant claims she’s never seen you before today. But we know that’s untrue,” Vice Adm. Crandall said.

He projected onto a large screen television digital images he had obtained from the witness. One clearly showed Pelosi and Mr. Ramirez hugging in a hotel room; another showed them standing side-by-side, smiling at a camera. “These are ‘selfies’ you took in the defendant’s company, is that correct?”

“That’s correct,” Mr. Ramirez said.

“Why did you take them?”

“Bragging rights.”

Vice Adm. Crandall snorted. “I really don’t think that’s something to brag about, Mr. Ramirez. You’re excused.”

The admiral addressed the panel: “This alone is solicitation for murder, which in traditional courts carries up to a 20-year sentence. In this case, we’re talking about a presidential candidate. And we’re by no means done.”

As Soon as I get more I will post it.🤔

It's coming in parts so bear with me.🙏