Mediaboss Marketing

                                                       (Image Credit: Christophe Lehena / Getty Images)

Newt Gingrich said the country is under attack by a the "secular left," Mitt Romney is concerned about President Obama's "secular agenda" and Rick Santorum has said repeatedly that the idea of an absolute separation of church and state makes him want to "throw up."

As the Republican presidential campaign drags on, the idea of a secular government is increasingly under fire. And Obama is personally under fire from Republican candidates, particularly Santorum,  who recently said the president's theology, especially where it comes to environmental laws, is " phony."

Obama's former press secretary said that comment "crossed the line."

But Americans by more than a 2-1 margin, 66 percent to 29 percent, say political leaders should not rely on their religious beliefs in making policy decisions," according to an ABC News-Washington Post poll from September of 2011.

This includes very narrow majorities of Republicans and conservatives, and much larger majorities of others.

Santorum apparently believes the most strongly about blurring the separation between church and state. He passionately defended his position in an interview with George Stephanopoulos Sunday, repeating that John F. Kennedy's famous 1960 speech pledging he would not bring his religion to the office of president "makes me throw up."

"To say that people of faith have no role in the public square?  You bet that makes you throw up.  What kind of country do we live that says only people of non-faith can come into the public square and make their case?" Santorum said.

He called the president someone "who is now trying to tell people of faith that you will do what the government says, we are going to impose our values on you, not that you can't come to the public square and argue against it, but now we're going to turn around and say we're going to impose our values from the government on people of faith, which of course is the next logical step when people of faith, at least according to John Kennedy, have no role in the public square."

Kennedy was the first and only Catholic president. He talked about his religion in 1960 in an address to protestant ministers.

"So it is apparently necessary for me to state once again not what kind of church I believe in - for that should be important only to me - but what kind of America I believe in. I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference; and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him or the people who might elect him. "

NPR has posted audio Kennedy's 1960 speech.

Fifty-two years later, Obama has come under attack for trying to tell churches what to do. The issue most at hand is a requirement by the Health and Human Services Department  that groups affiliated with churches - charities and hospitals, but not the churches themselves - must offer access to birth control in health insurance plans. The White House sought to soften the mandate by saying it is the insurance company that pays for the birth control coverage, but the criticism on the right that the administration declared a "war on religion" has persisted, particularly on the campaign trail.

Freedom of religion is a basic tenet of the United States. It states plainly in the First Amendment - the first changes the framers of the Constitution made to the document - "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…".

That clause has been the subject of argument and interpretation ever since, whether it is prayer in schools or the 10 commandments displayed at a state capitol. Is it meant that religion should not be a part of government or that government must simply respect religion. If government is not free of religion - 80 percent of Americans call themselves Christian - would it essentially become a religious state?

Obama has showcased his own faith recently, suggesting at a recent prayer breakfast that an adherence to the teachings of Jesus might lead Republicans to support a tax increase for the wealthy.

One year earlier at the 2011 prayer breakfast, he spoke in depth about his own faith and his relationship with God.

But the president is much less popular among Americans who go to church at least once a week, according to a February poll by the Pew Forum on Religion and  Public Life. He wins handily among Americans who seldom or never go to church.

"I don't believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute," Santorum said Sunday. "The idea that the church can have no influence or no involvement in the operation of the state is absolutely antithetical to the objectives and vision of our country.

"This is the First Amendment.  The First Amendment says the free exercise of religion.  That means bringing everybody, people of faith and no faith, into the public square."

Santorum, a devout Catholic, is the most outspoken Republican on the issue, but his point has been echoed by two of his rivals.

Gingrich, who converted to Catholicism when he married his third wife, has also lashed out against what he perceives as a war on religion by "the secular left."

"The forces of the secular left believe passionately and deeply, and with frankly a religious fervor, in their world view and they will regard what I am saying as a horrifying assault on what they think is the truth," Gingrich said. "Because their version of the truth is to have a totally neutral government that has no meaning," said Gingrich in Georgia.

Mitt Romney, who is Mormon, has accused Obama of having a "secular agenda."

"You expect the president of the United States to be sensitive to that freedom and protect it and, unfortunately, perhaps because of the people the president hangs around with, and their agenda, their secular agenda, they have fought against religion," Romney said, responding to a question at a town hall recently about religious freedoms, in particular the Obama administration's recent controversial attempt to require all institutions, including hospitals and colleges with religious affiliations, to offer free birth control and other contraceptives.

Ron Paul wants a separated church and state, but he wants to return to a charitable system of churches and community groups to help the poor and the sick.

For Santorum, whose political brand is steeped in social conservatism, a desire to bring God into the oval office and policy is not unexpected. Although hearing him say a famous and much-cited John F. Kennedy speech makes him nauseous is jarring.

Santorum's view has not always been so clear cut. In 2006, during an ultimately unsuccessful bid for re-election as a senator from Pennsylvania, Santorum said he would support contr
aception and  public funding for contraception programs even though he was, as a devout Catholic, personally opposed to them, and thought contraception itself was "harmful to women."

Romney gave a speech in 2007 during his first run for the White House in which he sought to assuage a perceived concern among some Republican primary voters about his Mormonism.

"If I am fortunate to become your president, I will serve no one religion, no one group, no one cause and no one interest. A president must serve only the common cause of the people of the United States," Romney said in December off 2007 at the George H.W. Bush Library at Texas A&M University.

Obama's religion has long been the subject of speculation by conspiracy theorists and even some influential leaders who question it.

Rev. Franklin Graham, for instance, recently said he can't say for sure that Obama is a Christian, but he is sure that Rick Santorum is.

Also Read

Read this article:
Separating Church and State: Vomit-Inducing or Necessary for Freedom of Religion?

If you’ve been persecuted or harassed by the FBI in the past, you have good reason to celebrate. The FBI can no longer utilize GPS tracking technology to monitor movement without a warrant to do so. The Supreme Court has ruled that no GPS tracking can take place in an investigation without a proper warrant being secured first. This prompted the FBI to turn off about 3000 devices that were currently in use.

Apparently, this is a game changing ruling for the U.S. Justice Department who has been employing this tactic for quite some time. Most typically, the GPS units are affixed to the underbody of vehicles to keep tabs on a suspects movements.

FBI General Counsel, Andrew Weissmann reports that retrieving the devices has not been easy since the order was handed down to deactivate them. In many cases, a warrant must be issued to have them turned back on so they may be located and recovered.

According to Weissmann, the case of the United States VS. Jones (The litigation which yielded the ruling), is going to have Justice officials scrambling to adhere to the new finding. If it is trespassing to place tracking devices on a vehicle, there could be further implications based on current practices.

Weissmann explains:

“From a law enforcement perspective, even though its not technically holding, we have to anticipate how it’s going to go down the road,”

I guess it isn’t really a big deal to the general population, but I feel that if the government wants to track the movements of an individual, they should have probable cause. If that’s the case, obtaining a warrant shouldn’t be too difficult.

In my opinion, the general public has been letting people in powerful positions abuse our resources for far too long. We pay every public employee’s salary with our tax dollars, and the people should reserve the right to call them out on abusive and costly practices.

Last week, I reported on the disgraceful insider trading that is going on with our lawmakers, and this ‘GPS tracking without warrants’ is another case of government waste and hypocrisy. Stop using our tax dollars to violate the laws you helped create Uncle Sam. Thank you Supreme Court.

Excerpt from:
Freedom From FBI Tracking Devices Is Here

By Mike Nester For The Prairie Advocate News

MOUNT CARROLL – The Carroll County Board of Review denied two requests on Monday, Feb. 20, made by the Eastland School District regarding the recent tax assessments in Freedom Township.

The Review Board ruled against a written protest and appeal regarding the tax assessment increase and also refused a motion requesting recusal of board member Lou Schloderbach.

In the Protest and Appeal of the tax assessment in Freedom Township, the Eastland School Board was seeking an eight percent decrease in real estate assessments instead of the nearly 20 percent that the state formula had determined.

At its January meeting, the Eastland Board voted 5-2 to protest the assessments

“No one refuted the fact that property values had declined,” Eastland Supt. of Schools Mark Hansen said. “The concern was that the re-assessments as published not only corrected for real declines in value, but were improperly lowered below that level in a non-quadrennial year.”

“This is particularly concerning as Eastland depends primarily on property taxes for its funding, and given the fact that state funding is being reduced,” added the Eastland School leader. “If the appeal is not successful, District revenues will be reduced by approximately $275,000 above and beyond what is already being lost as a result of declining EAV and reductions in state funding.”

Too much, too soon

In their protest, Eastland argued the property in question shouldn’t have been reassessed prior to the four-year statute and it should have only been reduced by eight percent, instead of the 18.27 percent.

The Review Board, comprised of Judy Dampman and Richard Delaney, examined all 17 points of the Eastland complaint, but disagreed with the school district’s view of how the property taxes were derived; going strictly by numbers determined by state statutes.

Carroll County Chief Assessor Annette Gruhn presented the Board of Review with state statutes that showed her legal obligation to reassess Freedom Township.

Gruhn said after receiving the states numbers on the 58 sales of property in Freedom Township in 2010, plus sales for the past two years, the sales ratio was 58.48, way over the 33.3 percent range. She stated this was the reason for the reassessment and added it was the highest level they ever had.

Carroll County’s assessor explained that housing sales weren’t off much but the lots, especially those at Lake Carroll, were way over-assessed. She said many of the lots lost 3/4 their value.

Gruhn held a telephone conference call with members of the Illinois Dept. of Revenue about the reassessment of Freedom Township and discussed the Sales Ratio Study of 58.48. She also spoke with IDOR officials regarding the early reassessment and presented two state statutes verifying the early assessment and the action.

Gruhn said Carroll County followed the same procedure in 2003 when property values were on the rise and increased the assessed value by 14.3 percent.

The Board of Review felt the Eastland School District didn’t provide any evidence to dispute the state’s numbers, similar to when citizens protest their personal real estate taxes. Both Dampman and Delaney said they needed to see some numbers to help prove the property was under assessed.

Supt. Hansen told the Prairie Advocate it’s important to understand that whether or not the District is successful in its appeal, it will be generating less revenues next year than this year. 

“Because everyone agrees that property values have declined, the only question is how much less,” said Hansen.

According to Hansen, if property is under-assessed it:

- further reduces the revenue the District can access to operate its programs;

- increases the burden on property owners whose property is accurately assessed;

- creates a “false bottom” from which future equalizations may be applied;

- and does undue harm at a time when the State is not meeting its constitutional obligation to fund public education.

He said these were some of the considerations that individual Eastland Board members weighed in deciding whether to appeal the assessments.

In 2010 the equalized assessed value of the Eastland District was $195,525,469. It is now estimated to be $171,075,140.

Recusal request denied

The Eastland School District also filed a motion with the Board of Review requesting recusal of board member Lou Schloderbach because in part they felt he couldn’t “fairly and impartially review” and give a “fair and impartial assessment of all property” while ruling on the Freedom Township issue. Schloderbach resides in Freedom Township.

In the motion, the Eastland Board said Schloderbach addressed the school board at its Jan. 18 meeting and according to the motion, “expressed concern about any attempt by the Board of Education to protest tax assessment within Freedom Township, the legal costs of such protests, and asked questions that reasonably indicate that he believed such effort was unwarranted.”

The Eastland Board felt Schloderbach had publicly and irrevocably demonstrated that he cannot fairly and impartially consider the matter.

The Board of Review denied the motion citing that Schloderbach was acting as a taxpayer in the Eastland School District and not as a member of the Carroll County Board of Review. They were presented with a legal ruling from State’s Attorney Scott Brinkmeier who said he felt the law stated that Schloderbach was not in any violation of “fair and impartial” review.

The Board of Review had also requested a recording of what Schloderbach had said at the meeting and were told that no such copy existed.

Both Dampman and Delaney said Schloderbach could abstain if he felt there was an issue. Schloderbach did not attend the Feb. 20 hearing.

The Eastland School District now has the option of having a hearing on the tax assessment issue with the Board of Review. According to Gruhn, a hearing has yet to be scheduled.

Loading

See the original post:
Board of Review Denies Eastland on Both Counts

News that Barclays (LSE: BARC.L - news) has fallen foul of the authorities for “highly abusive” tax avoidance schemes will not come as a surprise to those who follow Britain’s banks.

Barclays has long been perceived as the most aggressive player in the tax structuring business, devising products that arbitraged the rules to reduce clients’ bills. At its peak, Barclays even turned a part of its operation structured capital markets (SCM) over to tax avoidance.

SCM, under Roger Jenkins, became a huge profit engine. In one year, it was reported to have made £1bn for the bank and, shortly afterwards, Jenkins shot to notoriety as Barclays’ best-paid employee pocketing a reputed £40m a year. As SCM sat within the investment bank, Barclays Capital, the details were never properly disclosed, but never officially rebutted either.

Though legal, the behaviour raised ethical questions that came into particular focus after the financial crisis as, although Barclays never received direct taxpayer support, it relied at times on state funding schemes to keep afloat.

The backlash began in 2009, when Barclays hit the headlines after a whistleblower leaked documents to the Liberal Democrats which purported to show that it was using a network of subsidiaries in the Cayman Islands and Luxembourg to minimise clients’ taxes.

Barclays had the story injuncted on the grounds that the material was commercially sensitive, but its reputation took a hit and questions began to be asked about how much tax the bank itself was avoiding.

Early last year, it was forced into an embarrassing admission. In front of the Treasury Select Committee, chief executive Bob Diamond, who had nurtured SCM when he was head of BarCap, was forced to reveal that the bank operated nearly 300 subsidiaries in tax havens and had paid just £113m of corporation tax in the UK in 2009 a year in which it handed out £3.4bn in bonuses.

Since then, the questions have not gone away. Politicians have queried whether a bizarre deal struck in 2009 to move billions of toxic assets off its balance sheet was not just a tax ruse. The Protium arrangement raised such serious concerns in the US that the authorities would not let it drop until the deal was unwound at great expense to shareholders last year.

Analysis of Barclays accounts by The Daily Telegraph has raised further questions. According to the 2010 results, the bank generated £591m in “tax losses carried forward” despite making £6bn of profits before tax. The tax gain suggested the bank crystallised £2bn of losses that year, which the annual report said “mainly relates to entities in the USA, the UK and Spain”.

However, Barclays would not disclose where the £2bn of losses were incurred once again muddying the waters. The bank now has assets that it can offset against future tax payments that are almost as large as Royal Bank of Scotland and Lloyds Banking Group (LSE: LLOY.L - news) . While both the state-backed banks made huge visible losses, Barclays has reported profits every year for more than a decade.

The bank has always tried to draw attention to the tax it is paying, which the latest results showed was 32.8pc of profits in 2011, but so far it has not been enough to answer its critics.

Meanwhile, the question of business ethics keeps arising. At the end of last year, in his BBC Business Lecture, Diamond remarked that “rebuilding trust requires banks to be better citizens”. Barclays has also repeatedly stressed: “We are signatories of the UK Government’s code of conduct on tax and comply with the spirit and letter of the tax code.”

However, the authorities this week clearly decided that Barclays has been complying with the letter but not the spirit of the code. According to David Gauke, Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, Barclays should never have devised the schemes that it has been ordered to close in the first place.

“The bank that disclosed these schemes to HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) has adopted the Banking Code of Practice on Taxation which contains a commitment not to engage in tax avoidance,” he said. “The government is clear that these are not transactions that a bank that has adopted the code should be undertaking.”

As Gauke observed, the retrospective charge, which sources say will cost Barclays about £150m, will deliver the bank “a substantial reputational hit”. And, once again, it is not a surprise it was Barclays that came under fire.

See the original post:
Barclays has previous when it comes to tax avoidance

HAVING missed every major financial crisis or corporate collapse in the past 20 years, the three big global ratings agencies seem hell-bent on a mission to prove themselves relevant.

The only problem is that, whereas in the past they failed to spot anything at all, they now appear to be jumping at shadows.

Take the decisions by two of them on Australian banks in recent days.

Advertisement: Story continues below

On Friday, Fitch downgraded three of the big four banks - it excluded ANZ Banking Group as it already was on the lower rating - because it suddenly discovered Australian banks have borrowed heavily offshore and, apparently, there has been some kind of financial trouble in Europe recently.

That bizarre announcement was followed yesterday by an even more laughable proposition from Standard & Poor's.

It breathlessly announced Australia's banks could well be at risk if China's economy collapses.

I hate to be the bearer of bad tidings. But if China's economy has a ''hard landing'', as the agency postulated, there's certain to be more than just our banks that will suffer. Try our resources companies for starters. Try the global economy for seconds.

Despite all the hype about recovery, the US economy has sputtered to life only after copious doses of fuel from the US Federal Reserve, courtesy of zero interest rates and two massive doses of money printing.

Europe is now in recession, with the European Central Bank also cranking up the printing presses in a desperate effort to keep things ticking over. And in Japan, well, it's been the same old story since it collapsed in the early '90s.

China and emerging Asia are the driving forces for global commerce, the only geographic region showing any sign of life, powering the Australian economy to the greatest export performance in history. It's a somewhat myopic view to suggest that if China collapses, Australian banking could suffer some hard times.

Is it possible the ratings agencies missed the latest round of bank mega earnings?

Could they have overlooked our banks' monopolistic behaviour, their unique ability to be price-makers rather than price-takers when it comes to interest rates? And what about their terrific margins or world-beating returns on equity?

Investors largely took the Fitch banking downgrades in their stride yesterday with little movement in early trading. But the finance sector came under pressure during the session as the general market retreated.

Each of the big four has taken massive steps in reducing the impact of offshore funding. They've dramatically shifted reliance from offshore markets to onshore and they now rely far less on short-term debt than when the financial crisis hit in 2008.

On top of that, Europe finally has begun the long process of reducing the risk of a calamitous break-up. So you'd have to question the logic of downgrading Australian banks at this point. Surely, they faced greater risks three years ago.

It is true that back then, the federal government rode to the rescue, covering the foreign debts of all our financial institutions and insuring their deposits. But it is equally true that, in the event of a similar meltdown, the federal government would again support the banks. So the risk to the banking system now is lower, not higher.

The Reserve Bank governor, Glenn Stevens, also was at a loss to understand the downgrades. Other Australian companies with much greater risk profiles, he told a Senate hearing last week, could borrow offshore at cheaper rates than our banks.

You could argue the RBA governor has a vested interest in maintaining stability and so naturally would bat for the banks. But if you want to compare track records on financial analysis and economic management, Stevens wins by a country mile. And while he may want to eliminate overly negative sentiments, he's certainly not prone to boosterism.

But really, the banks have only themselves to blame. They invited these downgrades with their ridiculous posturing on interest rates.

In the past few months, they've been moaning at length about the enormous costs of borrowing offshore and how the ructions on European wholesale funding markets have walloped their profit margins.

At every opportunity, senior executives at the big four have loudly broadcast how captive they were to offshore funding costs. And their spinmeister, the Australian Bankers Association, has rarely been so busy, detailing the perilous nature of global finance and the abyss into which Australia may soon descend unless they raise interest rates.

They have virtually held up a big red flag to the ratings agencies, all the time screaming: ''Look at us! We are in serious trouble here.''

Guess what fellas. You were heard.

Collectively, they have made a serious error in judgment, not just strategically, but from an operational viewpoint.

The problem facing the banks is not funding costs. It is that demand for new loans has shrunk alarmingly. With lending growth at all-time lows, smashing profit records becomes virtually impossible.

You don't need to be an economics whizz to figure out that if you raise the price of a good or service, demand will shrink.

So by pushing rates higher, by pumping up their margins to maintain the record earnings streak, the big banks have ensured decreased demand for new loans, potentially pushing them into a vicious circle.

Oh yes, let's not forget that those lowered credit ratings will force the banks to pay more to raise cash on international wholesale markets.

Sometimes you need to be careful what you wish for.

More here:
Banks can only blame themselves