Covid-19 Face Masks violate OSHA Air Quality Standards

by Administrator


OSHA requires any atmosphere to which employees are exposed provide a minimum of 19.5% oxygen content.

Relevant sections in Reg 1910: "Paragraph (d)(2) (111) of the Respiratory Protection Standard with an oxygen level below 19.5 percent yo be oxygen deficient and an immediately dangerous to life or health. To ensure that employees have a reliable source of air with an oxygen content of at least 19.5%, paragraphs (d)(2)(i)(A) and (d)(2)(i)(B) of the respiratory protection standard require employees working under oxygen deficient conditions to provide their employees with a self contained breathing apparatus or a combination full-facepiece pressure demand  supplied air respirator with auxiliary self-contained air supply.  In the preamble to the final Respiratory Protection Standard, OSHA discussed extensively its rational for requiring that employees breathe air consisting of at least 19.5% oxygen."

Typical Covid-19 face masks subject wearers to an oxygen deficient atmosphere by allowing the rebreathing  of one's own exhaled carbon dioxide.

KS Dept of Revenue Illegally Cancels my Personal Exemption

by Allen Williams


In this age of economic turmoil brought on by Covid-19, states are having to scramble for new sources of income to make ends meet because they will not control spending. This situation is particularly egregious due to the state Supreme court dictating the amount of revenue that must be spent on schools and various lawyer's endlessly suing the state legislature.So every return is considered a possibility for squeezing out extra revenue.

In late June 2020 I received a notification from the infamous Kansas Department of Revenue that my personal exemption was NOT allowed.

                                           K-40 'Letter Rejecting my personal Exemption

Yes, you read that correctly my $2250 standard deduction was not allowed! Why how could that be possible?, you ask. Because that deduction is available to every taxpayer filing a return you state. Yes, but only if you are NOT claimed as a dependent on someones else's return. According to KDOR instructions recorded in Kip19.pdf for 2019, LINE 5:

LINE 5 (Exemption allowance): Multiply the total number of exemptions claimed on Form K-40 by $2,250. ImportantIf you are claimed as a dependent by another taxpayer, enter "0" on line 5.

Of course, I didn't record a zero in line 5 of my K-40 State income tax form ostensibly because I thought I was not subject to reclassification based on another person's filing.

                                           K-40 'adjustment' schedule from KDOR regarding my tax submittal.

I had just 30 days to respond. (See KDOR letter dated June 24, 2020). THIS NOTIFICATION SHOULD SERIOUSLY DISTURB EVERY TAXPAYER IN THE STATE. If this can happen to me it certainly can happen to anyone over 55.

First of all look at line 2 of KDOR's letter regarding, 'RE': their revision reasons. My return status is listed as part of a 'joint filing' submission made by parties unknown. Whoever it is I'm not related because I have no relatives residing in Kansas. But claimants are more likely to be an assisted living, nursing home or convalescent center businesses who handle a lot of clients where relationship is not relative. (Never mind the technicality that I've never been in any such facility.)

I've not signed any kind of guardianship documents naming individual(s) that could affect such a claim and there is no court order adjudicating my dependency. I have no medical conditions that would support a dependency claim and I have given NO consent to anyone to do so. Therefore there is no legal basis for this reclassification, it is PURELY outrageous FRAUD!.

The 'Exemptions and Dependents' category of he K-40 tax form requires each dependent's social security No. and date of birth to be listed along with their relationship so whoever has perpetrated this fraud has acquired my S.S. Number and date of birth otherwise KDOR would have challenged the claimant(s). However, unsurprisingly Kansas has no requirement, as does the IRS -1040 form, for the dependent to certify that he is a dependent on claimant's filing. Typically when you claim a dependent on a state form you have to FIRST claim them on the Federal form but interestingly enough I NEVER heard from the IRS. If KDOR had performed this simple check of my 1040 they would have noticed that I DID NOT check this box and coupled with my years of single filing status should have triggered a warning flag.

But remember the purpose here is to generate extra tax revenue (and ethics really isn't a consideration), so as long as the claim is reasonably accurate no need to do anything more than perpetrate the fraud because this year it costs me $111 and every subsequent year the claimant(s) wish to perpetrate it. KDOR gets the money and the claimant gets an extra $2250 deduction against their income so everyone wins but me. You may remember my 2019 KDOR posting where they had no record of my $18 tax payment (even though I gave them the check No. and date). They attempted to charge me again if I didn't produce a copy of their endorsement seal on my check. This year they're increasing the stakes.

                                          Letter to KDOR Contesting denial of my Personal Exemption.

On June 26, 2020 I filed a rebuttal to the Kansas Dept of revenue emphatically denying that I am a consensual legal dependent on any persons or business firm's return and copying the Kansas Attorney General along with the Governor. In my correspondence I demanded that KDOR take remedial action against claimants which would infer producing signature evidence of my agreement or a COURT ORDER affirming said status and in the meantime to honor my return as filed.

These people aren't particularly friendly or cooperative as they regard taxpayers as something simply to be milked. So we'll see how this goes as I await their response.






Where we are now

                                                             

    United States: We are at War -- watch this important video

                                                                             THE COMMUNIST TAKEOVER OF THE UNITED STATES
                                                                        https://www.patreon.com/posts/united-states-we-38605959

Civil War/Slavery. A History

  Isn’t it odd that the very liberals that accused Sara Palin of being a “Book Burner”

are now

out destroying anything that reflects upon our past history?

 

 

Well this is certainly another look and opinion per the Civil War,Slavery, and it's history.

 

 



A Tale of Two Monuments

Thomas J. DiLorenzoThomas J. DiLorenzo                                                     |Posted: Jun 17, 2020 9:39 AM
 
 


 
 
 
 
 
Virginia Governor Ralph Northam has ordered the removal of the monument to Robert E. Lee on Monument Avenue in Richmond. The social and political significance of this is different from what many (perhaps most) Americans, educated in our politically correct government schools, think it will be. Let’s compare the meaning of the Lee monument to its most famous counterpart, the Lincoln Memorial.
 
The Lee monument means different things to different people, but history is history, and one thing the monument stands for is the act of defiance against the central state that occurred when the Southern states seceded from the union. Nineteenth-century Southerners were the only group in American history to ever seriously defy what they believed to be unconstitutional dictates of Washington, D.C. They took seriously the Jeffersonian dictum in the Declaration of Independence that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and whenever government fails, in their opinion, to promote their happiness, they have a duty to abolish that government and replace it with a new one. The U.S. government responded to Southern defiance by waging total war on the entire Southern population, which led to the death of one-fourth of the adult male population and some 50,000 civilians according to historian James McPherson.

 
Past generations of Southerners revered Robert E. Lee because he successfully defended Richmond for three years from the kind of looting and burning that occurred in Atlanta, Columbia, and many other Southern cities and towns. In his book, What They Fought For: 1861–1865, James McPherson concluded that the typical Confederate soldier believed he was fighting against an invading army that would loot and burn his town and threaten his family and friends; the typical Union Army solder thought he was fighting for “the flag” and “the Union.”
 
The Lincoln Memorial is a monument honoring the government’s waging of total war against its own citizens to prevent acts of defiance and to deter them in the future. As H. L. Mencken remarked in a critique of the Gettysburg Address, it was Southerners who were fighting for the consent of the governed; the North was fighting against it.
 
Lincoln did not invade the South to free the slaves. Both President Lincoln and the U.S. Congress informed the world in 1861 that the war had nothing to do with slavery. In his first inaugural address, Lincoln declared, “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists.” In the same address, he also pledged his support for a constitutional amendment—the Corwin Amendment—that would have prohibited the federal government from ever interfering with slavery. It read: “No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said state.” It had already passed the Republican-controlled House and Senate and was ratified by Illinois, Ohio, Rhode Island, Maryland, and Kentucky.
 

 
The July 25, 1861, Crittenden–Johnson Resolution, also known as the “War Aims Resolution,” was issued by the House and Senate and declared that “this war is not waged on our part” for any “purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of the States,” by which they meant slavery. The official purpose of the war was to “save the union” by forcing the Southern states back into it at gunpoint and, most importantly to Lincoln, restoring their federal tax collections (mostly tariffs). In other words, its purpose was to destroy, not save, the voluntary union of the founders and replace it with a coerced union held together by violence.

 
The Lincoln Memorial celebrates this, above all else, as explained by a National Park Service publication entitled “Secret Symbol of the Lincoln Memorial” by Nathan King. The “true meaning” of the Memorial is represented by a “ubiquitous symbol” that is all over it. That symbol is the “fasces,” a “bundle of rods bound together by a leather thong.” The fasces (where the word “fascism” comes from) were used by Roman emperors as a “symbol of power and authority,” according to this U.S. government publication.
 
 
The rods of the fasces “suggest punishment by beating” and the axe “suggests beheading” of those who disobey the emperor’s orders. “Power, strength, authority [of government], and justice” are what the fasces mean. They represent “the power and authority of the state over the citizens.” Lest Americans be repulsed by such authoritarian and, well, fascist language, the article contends that the fasces were “Americanized” by placing an eagle above them all around the Lincoln Memorial.
 
So, according to the U.S. government, the “true meaning” of the Lincoln Memorial is essentially that the American people are no longer the masters but rather the servants of their own government. Government’s “just powers” are no longer dependent upon the consent of the governed, but on the opinions of the federal government itself, primarily through its own Supreme Court.
 
 
The one unequivocal good that came from Lincoln’s war was, of course, the ending of slavery in 1866 with the Thirteenth Amendment, although Lincoln’s role in passing the amendment has been exaggerated by historians according to Pulitzer Prize–winning Lincoln biographer David Donald. Lincoln’s biggest failure, however, was that the U.S. government did not end slavery the way all other governments of the world (including the northern states in the U.S.) did in the nineteenth century: peacefully. Only in America was there a war that caused hundreds of thousands of deaths associated with the ending of slavery. Following the British model, the North’s financial cost of the war alone would have been enough to purchase the freedom of all the slaves and end the evil institution once and for all, according to historian Jeffrey Hummel.
 
                        ...................................
*Dr. Thomas DiLorenzo is the author of The Problem with Lincoln (Regnery History; July 2020) and The Problem with Socialism and is a senior fellow of the Ludwig von Mises Institute.