Schumer has long been a perfect example of why I hold both parties in equal disdain; a poster child for the benefits of campaign finance reform.

Chucky doesn’t want to go after the banks/Wall Streeters in New York.

*****

Charles Schumer’s Wall Street dance
By Brian Montopoli
June 29, 2011
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20075213-503544.html

Excerpt;
It was the fall of 2008 – the thick of the financial crisis – and Sen. Charles Schumer had a problem.

During his rise to become the powerful third-ranking Democrat in the Senate, the New Yorker had aggressively cultivated an image as a true liberal Democrat, someone who put hardworking middle-class Americans ahead of special interests. It was a characterization he pushed in his frequent television appearances; In his book “Positively American,” Schumer alluded to a fictional middle-class couple, the Baileys, whom he dubbed “the reason I had entered public service.”

Yet outside the public eye, Schumer was one of the biggest beneficiaries of Wall Street money that Congress had ever seen.

Over the course of his career, Schumer has raised half a million dollars from Goldman Sachs – and nearly as much from Citigroup, Morgan Stanley and JPMorgan Chase. Between 1989 and 2010, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, Schumer took in nearly $9 million from the entire securities and investment industry, a haul that helped him become one of the most powerful politicians in America, a deep-pocketed kingmaker with unrivalled connections among the wealthiest players on Wall Street.

Senators Go After Eduardo Saverin, Facebook Co-Founder, For Dumping U.S. Passport, Avoiding Taxes

“WASHINGTON — Populist anger at Facebook co-founder Eduardo Saverin’s decision to renounce his U.S. citizenship — a move that could save him hundreds of millions in taxes if his Facebook stock gains value after the company goes public on Friday — has inspired two senators to propose legislation that could hit Saverin with heavy taxes and bar him from ever reentering the United States.

Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Bob Casey (D-Pa.) are unveiling the Ex-PATRIOT Act, which stands for “Expatriation Prevention by Abolishing Tax-Related Incentives for Offshore Tenancy,” on Thursday. The bill would force anyone who “expatriates for a substantial tax purpose — as judged by the Internal Revenue Service” to pay a mandatory 30 percent tax on future capital gains. The ex-citizens would also be turned back at the border if they ever tried to come back.

“This is a great American success story gone horribly wrong,” Schumer told reporters Thursday. “Eduardo Saverin wants to defriend the United States of America just to avoid paying taxes. We aren’t going to let him get away with it.”

Schumer called Saverin’s behavior ‘outrageous,’ arguing that ‘Saverin has turned his back on the country that welcomed him and kept him safe, educated him and helped him become a billionaire.’

Schumer also predicted the GOP would go along with the measure.

‘Why wouldn’t they?’ he said. Casey added, ‘I’d like to hear the reason why not.’”

Uh, because in America the social compact is based entirely upon voluntary membership once a person is of the age of majority whether they are a natural or naturalized citizen, Chucky. If you graft monkeys are soooooo concerned about lost tax revenues, how about your getting your act together and making sure the wealthy who remain citizens pay their fair share right after you make sure the corporations pay taxes instead of making money on taxes like GE did last year? Yeah. Because otherwise this reeks of discrimination and playing to voter angst rather than doing anything productive and/or substantive to solve our nation’s problems. Of course, if someone were to point out to you that this kind of ex post facto law is forbidden by the Article I, section 9, clause 3 of the Constitution your lot can always point to your equally illegal immunity from prosecution deal with the telecom industry as a precedent. Morons.

Excerpt:
Occupy Provo, in concert with the Utah Valley University Revolutionary Students Union, marched Saturday to protest the National Defense Authorization Act and the Enemy Expatriation Act (H.R. 3166).

“Last night, Pelley . . . interviewed Defense Secretary and former CIA chief Leon Panetta on 60 Minutes. It’s well worth watching this three-minute clip because, although Panetta doesn’t say much that is new (he simply asserts the standard slogans and unproven assertions that Obama defenders on this topic always assert), watching a top Obama official, under decent questioning, defend the power to target U.S. citizens for assassination viscerally conveys the rigidly authoritarian mindset driving all of this.”

[snip]

“Here we have the U.S. Defense Secretary, life-long Democrat Leon Panetta, telling you as clearly as he can that this is exactly the operating premise of the administration in which he serves: once the President accuses you of being a Terrorist, a decision made in secret and with no checks or due process, we can do anything we want to you, including executing you wherever we find you. ”

http://www.salon.com/2012/01/30/leon_panettas_explicitly_authoritarian_decree/singleton/

Congressional Record References Bill Summary & Status

S.1698 — Enemy Expatriation Act (Introduced in Senate – IS)

S 1698 IS

112th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. 1698

To add engaging in or supporting hostilities against the United States to the list of acts for which United States nationals would lose their nationality.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

October 12, 2011

Mr. LIEBERMAN (for himself and Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To add engaging in or supporting hostilities against the United States to the list of acts for which United States nationals would lose their nationality.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Enemy Expatriation Act’.

SEC. 2. LOSS OF NATIONALITY.

(a) In General- Section 349 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1481) is amended–

(1) in subsection (a)–

(A) in each of paragraphs (1) through (6), by striking `or’ at the end;

(B) in paragraph (7), by striking the period at the end and inserting `; or’; and

(C) by adding at the end the following:

`(8) engaging in, or purposefully and materially supporting, hostilities against the United States.’; and

(2) by adding at the end the following:

`(c) For purposes of this section, the term `hostilities’ means any conflict subject to the laws of war.’.

(b) Technical Amendment- Section 351(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1483(a)) is amended by striking `(6) and (7)’ and inserting `(6), (7), and (8)’.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:s1698:

**********

`hostilities’ means any conflict subject to the laws of war.’

Can anyone explain what the above actually means? What are all the types of conflict that our government could consider to be subject to the laws of war?

This is something we should be very concerned about. Excellent article.

Thanks for that Bill Moyers link.

http://www.pbs.org/now/commentary/moyers19.html

Thanks for your input and links. Like you, I wonder why there is so little discussion of this very serious subject in the MSM. I felt it was an important issue to write about.

While income inequality has been rising sharply in the US economic mobility has been dropping off a cliff – both are much better in Europe and Scandinavia now. Add in the social safety net, better corporate governance and environmental regulations…” -Frankly

Frankly,

While I wholeheartedly agree, I’m still crazy enough to believe that we can cure what ails us… and we need your children to be a part of “the cure”…

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/01/citizenship_easy_come_easy_goes.html

I also mentioned it twice, yesterday, in Prof Turley’s last thread on Levin’s response. No one responded to my post, however, I am happy to see that today there is an article here on the Expatriation Act.

My earlier point, however, was the fact that even Rep. Dent, in his video promoting his proposed legislation, mentions Hamdi as an example of why he feels the law is necessary. The uncomfortable fact, though, that no one seems to want to admit, is that Hamdi (and also Awlaki!) were “dual citizens,” and are only US citizens because of the “nonsense” (adjective used by Judge Posner) of the birthright citizenship practice. Even Justice Scalia, in his dissent in Hamdi, referred to him as a “presumed” citizen, which I also discussed in my previous American Thinker article: “Citizenship Jeopardy.”

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/10/citizenship_jeopardy.html

I cannot understand why no one else is bringing this up. Terrorists like Hamdi or Awlaki are fortunately rare occurrences that can be dealt with existing laws. If they were “stripped” of their US citizenship, they would not be “stateless.” The unavoidable fact that they were “dual” citizens (at birth, and unlike naturalized citizens who must renounce foreign citizenships in their Oath of naturalization, they get to be dual citizens for life??), points to the need for reform of the birthright citizenship practice and the toleration of dual citizenship in our nation (a status that Dr. John Fonte calls “civic bigamy”).

I understand that immigration reform and birthright citizenship are unpopular subjects, but the fact that we have over 40 million dual citizens in the US (per Stanley Renshon) cannot be overlooked as it affects our national security.

Of course I am not implying that dual citizenship equates with terrorism, but imagine if we ever became involved in a conflict while having a significant percentage of citizens claiming not just heritage, but actual citizenship in the very countries with which we are at war.

Instead, Congress passes legislation that endangers the rights of citizenship of all of us.

While income inequality has been rising sharply in the US economic mobility has been dropping off a cliff – both are much better in Europe and Scandinavia now. Add in the social safety net, better corporate governance and environmental regulations Horace would be saying “Go East young man, go East”.

Copy that…lol

And to OS: “exactly.”

I think this says it all….Washington….Please learn how to read….and understand what you read…I hear your name and it is called Terrorism…..

Such scared little men have no business in leadership positions. … legislators cowering in corners muttering “be afraid, be afraid”.

Oh well, I guess cowards need representation too.

Due Process seems to be another one of those “quaint ideas” that has gone by the wayside.

DonS – you forgot to mention The Pledge of Allegiance and flag pins.

Supreme Court.

Ginsberg and Kennedy are aging and may retire. The idea of a Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, or Rick Santorum appointing the next couple or three SCOTUS justices gives me heartburn. We may even be blessed by Thomas or Scalia retiring, although those two ideologues will probably stay on the bench until they are dead and mummified as long as there is a Democrat in the White House.

All the citizenry seems to respond to. like Pavolov’s dogs, is the cue to play the star spangled banner and cheer. The subtleties of eroded liberties is lost. That’s for some other poor slob to worry about. Not me. Right?

This nexus of law and politics has to meet the test of common sense at some point, where politicians can’t hide behind the twin buffers of legalisms and jingoism.

Civil liberties? What a quaint idea!