A high-resolution shot taken in 1865. Just amazing.
(hat tip: Melissa Clouthier)
So, Democrat Pete Stark represents a state he doesn't live in?
Oh-oh, looks like more tax troubles for another Democrat in Washington.
California's Rep. Pete Stark, a senior House Democrat who helps write the nation's tax laws, has been claiming a $1.7 million Maryland home as his principal residence in recent years, although he represents the Golden State's 13th District on the east side of San Francisco Bay.
The 77-year-old Stark has saved himself nearly $3,900 in state and county taxes by claiming the six-acre waterfront estate as his principal residence, according to an investigation by Bloomberg News.
Maryland law allows the tax break only to those residences used "for the legal purposes of voting, obtaining a driver's license, and filing income tax returns."
Notified of the discovery, a state official said an investigation would be launched.
Stark tells Bloomberg, "Insofar as I know, I'm obeying the law."
Daschle got in trouble with South Dakota voters and tax authorities when it looked like he was claiming legal residency in D.C., not his home state. Of course, Stark fits right in with the loopy-Left milieu of the San Francisco Bay Area, so maybe the voters there won't care. The IRS, however, may take a dimmer view. Regardless, it's another case of YANSID.
UPDATE: Pete Stark is not eligible to be in Congress. I cite Article I, section 2 of the Constitution of the United States:
No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.
By his own admission, Stark spends about eight months in Maryland per year. He is not by any legal definition a California resident. Stark should be expelled immediately and a special election called.
Well, Madame Speaker?
Canada’s Jonathan Kay takes a look at something that distinguishes Israel (and other civilized states) from its Arab enemies: how they treat possible crimes committed by their armed forces:
Here, in a nutshell, is the difference between Israel and the terror-worshiping cultures that besiege it. When terrorists kill Israeli women and children with bombs or missiles, they regard it as a triumph worthy of celebration; sweets are passed out; the terrorists themselves are venerated as martyrs. When Israeli soldiers deliberately kill Arab women and children, on the other hand, most Israelis regard it as a disgusting aberration, and a legal investigation is launched.
Kay compares two instances: the accusations against Israeli soldiers during their operations last year in Gaza, and the reception granted Arab terrorist Samir Kuntar on his release from Israel. In the first, some Israeli soldiers have been accused of extra-legal killings -murders- of Palestinian civilians during the invasion of Gaza. This story was first broken by Israeli papers and is now under investigation by Israeli military legal authorities. As Kay points out, in an open society such as Israel’s, a cover-up is unlikely.
The attitude of the other side is shown by the treatment of Samir Kuntar on his return from imprisonment in Israel. In 1979, Kuntar gunned down a 31-year old man and then smashed the victim’s four-year old daughter’s head in with the butt of his rifle. For this brave act of jihad, Kuntar was treated as a hero on his return to Lebanon and granted Syria’s highest medal. Iran honored him.
And yet there are those who see no difference between Israel (and, by extension, the West) and the Islamic fascists who want to take us back to the 7th century. Or worse, they brand Israel and the West as aggressors and treat the fascists as victims.
I don’t get it: is it confusion and ignorance, or simple moral bankruptcy?
(hat tip: RCP)