Have you ever thought about owning a vacation home, even if you rent in the states?

Now may be the time and here is a company who can show you how it could pay for itself.

The town of Jaco Beach Costa Rica is the closest readily accessible beach to the capital city of San Jose and still has the reputation of being the “fun and sun” spot on the Pacific coast. Playa Jacó is considered the liveliest and most developed beach town on the Pacific coast. Real Estate at its best!

It is a complete city with supermarkets, stores, public and private schools, clinics and other services. The area includes great surfing and beautiful beaches, national parks, tropical rain forests with an abundance of flora and fauna. There are many hotels, restaurants and night spots. Here are marinas with world famous sports fishing, golf courses, and all kinds of adventures from horseback riding and nature tours to zip lines.

The number one attraction is the surf and surfers love the consistent beach break here and in neighboring Playa Hermosa. The active village is full of life at all hours of the day and night.

Costa Rican Realtors Jaco Beach Real Estate makes it easy for you to purchase vacation or investment properties in Jaco Beach, Hermosa Beach and Los Suenos Resort and Marina because Costa Rican Realtors Jaco Beach Real Estate makes it easy for you to find vacation or investment properties in Jaco Beach. Hermosa Beach and Los Suenos Resort and Marina. We offer complete MLS listings, financial tools and sound Real Estate advice to make the most out of your Real Estate sale or purchase.

Browse through our listings and find the properties that fit your desire and your budget and tell us so we can arrange your showings. Then click on our “Book Your Trip” link to plan the Date, location and entertainment during your stay. We will see that you have a great time in Costa Rica and get a great deal on the property of your choice.

Come check out the folks at Costa Rican Realtors to get the advice and attention your investments deserve.

Rob Garver

Tuesday, 6 Jan 2015 | 10:21 AM ETFiscal Times

146
SHARES
238

COMMENTSJoin the Discussion

A man fills up for under $3 a gallon in Salisbury, CT on Jan. 1, 2015.

Adam Jeffery | CNBC
A man fills up for under $3 a gallon in Salisbury, CT on Jan. 1, 2015.

When prominent members of both political parties talk about the possibility of taxing fossil fuels – you know something serious has shifted in U.S. politics.

On Monday morning, former Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers, a largely pro-business Democrat, published a column in The Washington Post calling for the imposition of a carbon tax.

Read MoreHere’s where pros say oil will bottom (Ouch!)

“The case for carbon taxes has long been compelling,” Summers wrote. “With the recent steep fall in oil prices and associated declines in other energy prices, it has become overwhelming. There is room for debate about the size of the tax and about how the proceeds should be deployed. But there should be no doubt that, given the current zero tax rate on carbon, increased taxation would be desirable.”

Read more from The Fiscal Times:
As gas prices drop, gas taxes will likely rise
Pope Francis to convert Catholics to believe in global warming
States Are Spending More as Economy Improves

Summers’ call for a carbon tax came just a day after prominent Republicans discussed the possibility of an increase in the federal gas tax to shore up the Federal Highway Trust Fund, which will run out of money this May.

The tax has been at 18.4 cents per gallon, without being adjusted for inflation, for more than 20 years. Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) has advocated raising that tax to match inflation by 12 cents over two years as a means of creating a dedicated source of funding – a sort of user fee – for the federal highway system. Appearing with Corker on Fox News Sunday, Sen. John Thune (R-SD), who will chair the Commerce Committee in the new Senate, said he couldn’t rule out the possibility of raising the tax.

Read MoreGas prices may hit 2009 low: GasBuddy.com

“I don’t think we take anything off the table at this point,” Thune said. “I think it’s important to recognize we have a problem and issue that we need a solution for and we need to look at all the possible ways [to] address the problem.”

Corker’s proposed gas tax is less far-reaching than Summers’ proposal, which presumably would hit all emitters of carbon, from cars to factories. Yet the fact that both sides are even considering a move is notable.

<p>Fight to fund infrastructure: Corker</p> <p>Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) supports a bill to raise the federal gas tax as a way to solve the country's long-term infrastructure problems. </p>

Summers’ argument for a broader tax is largely economic. “That which is not paid for is overused,” he writes. This applies to energy in the U.S. because the use of fossil fuels creates what economists call “externalized costs.” When a driver burns a gallon of gas in his car, he is paying for all the costs of extracting and refining oil and delivering gasoline to a filling station. However, he is not contributing anything toward the remediation of the effects of air pollution caused, in part, by his own vehicle’s exhaust.

The same argument applies to power plants that release damaging emissions or foul waterways. The full price of their operations is not reflected in their costs. A carbon tax would attempt to capture the currently externalized costs of burning fossil fuels – basically compensating broader society for the costs it now bears to the advantage of people and companies that use large amounts of carbon-emitting energy.

To be sure, any increase in taxes at the producer level would ultimately find its way to the consumer. Economic pressures, however, cut both ways. Producers compete on price, and if one method of production or delivery becomes expensive, it should spur innovation to find cheaper alternatives. Consumers reward producers who offer lower cost by giving them more business, and cleaner energy becomes a competitive advantage.

Read MoreOil dips below $49 as sector faces ‘Hunger Games’

Yet as Jared Bernstein, a senior fellow with the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, pointed out on his blog Monday, a modest increase in the gas tax might be all that advocates of taxing carbon can reasonably hope for.

“[I]t’s probably more realistic – or less unrealistic – given the makeup of the new Congress and where they are on taxes to think smaller and more targeted,” wrote Bernstein, who has argued for raising the gas tax.

“A gas tax is, of course, also a tax on carbon, but a few cents a gallon (say a nickel/gallon a year phased in over three years) won’t be felt by drivers either now or even down the road when gas prices go back up.”

Media purposefully ignores lethal adverse reactions to vaccines

by Rob Dew | Infowars.com | January 7, 2015

Share on Facebook1563Tweet about this on Twitter280Share on Google+0Email this to someonePrint this page

Once again the medical industrial complex is pushing the flu scare to new heights.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5WWtqR9v4sFlu Shots

Unfortunately parents, the elderly and the ignorant will roll up their sleeves and their children’s to inject this toxic cocktail into their bodies.

Every year Infowars is forced to keep account of the victims who are dead or debilitated by flu vaccines. Leave it to the mainstream media to run cover for the eugenics mafia and not ask the obvious hard questions of the by-design side effects of this deadly shot. RIP victims of the New World Order.

Read more:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/artic…

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/stor…

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/stor…

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/stor…

http://www.cdc.gov/flu/protect/keyfac…

http://drtenpenny.com/the-truth-about…

http://whotv.com/2015/01/02/iowa-teen…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0eXa…

Posted on January 2, 2013 by Robert Farago

gun

gun

UPDATE: Two firearms-related bills are now headed for committee. Click here to read the texts.

The NRA’s Illinois rep confirms Illinois Senate President John Cullerton’s gun ban bill. Posting at illinoiscarry.com, Todd Vandermyde says “Not only are they going after semi-autos and magazines, but they are going after ranges . . . Sources say the new bills would require any range open to the public to be run by an FFL. That they would be licensed under unlimited rules and regulations by the State Police. If you see what the Governor did under his AV of SB-681, you can imagine what kind of rules/standards he would put in place to run a range.” The new bill would also prevent non-FOID card holders from getting firearm safety training with a live fire component. “At this time we have no bill numbers,” Todd says. “But we anticipate them using house bills passed over for floor amendments which would only take a matter of hours to clear committee and be ready for a final vote. Legislative offices are open today.” Any gun owner can call Senator Cullerton at 773-883-0770 to lodge their protest.
You may also like –

BREAKING: Illinois Bill to Ban All Modern Firearms
A Win For Illinois Gun Owners. No Really.
Illinois Senator Donne Trotter Is Not a Hypocrite. Really.
BREAKING: U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Strikes Down IL Concealed Carry Ban
NRA: Illinois Will Be A Shall-Issue State

12.19.2012

Attacks individual right to keep and bear arms

Steve Watson
Infowars.com
Dec 18, 2012


Barack Obama’s former head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Cass Sunstein, a long time advocate of eviscerating the Second Amendment, has penned a piece that essentially labels anyone who defends long standing gun rights in the US as “crazy”.

In the editorial titled Gun Debate Must Avoid Crazy Second Amendment Claims, Sunstein argues that the individual right to bear arms, supported and reaffirmed consistently by courts across the nation, constitutes “wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution.”

“Sure, it could fairly be read to support an individual right to have guns.” writes Sunstein of the Second, “But in light of the preamble, with its reference to a well-regulated militia, it could also be read not to confer an individual right, but to protect federalism, by ensuring that the new national government wouldn’t interfere with citizen militias at the state level.”

He then goes on to claim that for decades it was never recognized that the Second Amendment protected the individual’s right to keep and bear arms, and that it was only with the Supreme Court decision in 2008 that individual rights were established.

“We should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established, but a lot of gun-control legislation, imaginable or proposed, would be perfectly consistent with the court’s rulings.” Sunstein writes.

“It is past time to stop using the Second Amendment itself as a loaded weapon, threatening elected representatives who ought to be doing their jobs.” Sunstein concludes.

This constitutes an old argument that is used by big government gun grabbers and those politically motivated to erode individual rights. The Supreme Court decision in 2008 UPHELD the individual right to keep and bear arms, as many other court decisions and Justice Department memoranda has before. It did not ESTABLISH that right, as Sunstein argues.

In 2004, the Justice Department noted, “A ‘right of the people’ is ordinarily and most naturally a right of individuals, not of a State and not merely of those serving the State as militiamen. The phrase ‘keep arms’ at the time of the Founding usually indicated the private ownership and retention of arms by individuals as individuals, not the stockpiling of arms by a government or its soldiers, and the phrase certainly had that meaning when used in connection with a ‘right of the people,’”

“Moreover, the Second Amendment appears in the Bill of Rights amid amendments securing numerous individual rights, a placement that makes it likely that the right of the people to keep and bear arms likewise belongs to individuals,” the DOJ’s report continued.

Sunstein’s argument against individual gun rights hinges on the notion that the Founders used the word “people” to mean “states”, a clearly ridiculous suggestion especially given that the Constitution and Bill of Rights were penned by the most meticulous wordsmiths in history.

Thomas Jefferson himself wrote in several drafts of the Virginia constitution, provisions that “no freeman shall be debarred the use of arms.”

In addition, state-level precursors to the Second Amendment made it clear that keeping arms was each person’s individual right “for the defence of themselves and the state.”

In his argument, Sunstein even wrongly cites the 1939 case of U.S. v. Miller, to argue that there is no individual right to keep and bear arms. In reality, however, the court in that case duly noted that the “militia” mentioned in the Second Amendment comprised all able-bodied males – ie individuals.

Sunstein, and those who have propelled the same argument about the Second Amendment are twisting its meaning. The founders explicitly crafted the Second Amendment as a bulwark against government tyranny. Armed militia — citizens of a country — were to defend against the possible rise of a tyrannical state, not only merely to organize for hunting expeditions or to defend against small scale criminal activity.

We have seen this kind of Rhetoric before from Sunstein. During a lecture at the University of Chicago Law School on October 27, 2007, he argued that “The Supreme Court has never suggested that the Second Amendment protects the individual right to have guns.”

Sunstein either misunderstands the original purpose of the Second Amendment or stands opposed to an armed citizenry guarding against tyranny.

Given that Sunstein has also argued that the First Amendment should be “reformulated”, and has called for taxing or banning outright, as in making illegal, opinions and ideas that the government doesn’t approve of, it is clearly only his views on the Constitution and Bill of Rights that are “crazy”, and not those of the Founders.
Cass Suunsteen

Aaron Dykes
Infowars.com
February 15, 2010

The testimony of Norman Mineta before the 9/11 Commission leaves compelling questions about former Vice President Dick Cheney’s actions on the day of 9/11. Then Transportation Secretary Mineta witnessed Cheney refuse to contradict an apparent standdown order as an aide warned of something incoming at the Pentagon. Cheney has given conflicting reports about what time he entered the PEOC bunker. Mineta later confirmed his suppressed 9/11 Commission testimony and refuted Cheney’s account of arriving later.

During the CPAC conference, WeAreChange.org confronted Cheney about these questions, which he refused to address.

“Hey Mr. Cheney, what did you do in the underground bunker on 9/11? Dick Cheney we know what you did on 9/11 with the standdown order. Norman Mineta testified against you on the 9/11 Commission report. What happened on 9/11?”

When he was being forced out, WeAreChange.org founder Luke Rudkowski calmly asked security not to push him; security backed off after asking him, ‘Are you being polite?’

Luke Rudkowski and James Lane of We Are Change confront Dick Cheney in Wahsington D.C. at CPAC 2/10/2011.

WeAreChangeOklahoma – Newt Gingrich and Dick Cheney (CPAC 2011) [MEDIA NOTE: WITHOUT MUSIC OVER-SCORE]

Cheney dodged the continuing questions by exiting with his entourage into an elevator. As a woman started repeating “Thank you Mr. Cheney for all you’ve done,” Rudkowski interjected that he was a ‘terrorist.’ Certainly, the use of admittedly elevated terror alerts throughout the Bush administration to stoke the fear card and score political dominion alone is reason to justify this label. The implications of what really happened on 9/11, and in relation to Cheney’s apparent standdown order, is even more compelling. Notably, a change in the standard operating procedure for the chain of command during the event of a hijacked aircraft was changed in June 2001, including subjecting NORAD’s response to DoD approval (SEE BELOW).

(Click each document for a larger image)

The former Vice President’s re-entry into the public limelight, after years of dealing with heart issues, is what appears to be an attempt to re-brand the Bush Administration in time to retain neo-con power in the coming GOP presidential primary field, where tea party politics and candidates like Ron Paul have obviously taken root with conservative voters in the years of the Obama administration. This confrontation occurred during the same CPAC convention where Ron Paul won the presidential straw poll and Dick Cheney was heckled and called a “war-monger” during a pep rally where Donald Rumsfeld was given the “Defender of the Constitution Award.”

From Norman Mineta’s testimony:

“During the time that the airplane was coming into the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President…the plane is 50 miles out…the plane is 30 miles out….and when it got down to the plane is 10 miles out, the young man also said to the vice president “do the orders still stand?” And the Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said “Of course the orders still stand, have you heard anything to the contrary!?

08.22.2010

One of the worst taxes the State & Federal Gov’t has ever contrived is the Utilities Tax. This tax hit hardest on the poor because these expenses are not optional they are Natural Gas, electric, cable, Internet and phone. You can not today live with out any of these and that is why the Gov’t has it’s paws into it.

These taxes need to be removed, the regulations prohibiting fair trade must be repealed & the people who put these regulations and taxes on us in the first place should be publicly humiliated and sent home never being allowed to hold public office again.

This may sound extreme but so is robbing the American people like these elected officials have done for years and it’s time it comes back to haunt them.

08.22.2010

It has become common place for our Gov’t to reach an agreement with the Indian tribes that were native to this country and then when it suits their needs the Gov’t ignores and violates them at will. According to the Constitution signed and ratified treaties are to be followed as the law of the land and honored and backed with the full force of the law.

The Libertarian Party will honor these treaties and respect the intent of these treaties as they were written and when. All disagreement and conflicts with or over theses treaties will be rectified by the existing circumstance’s at the time of ratification (i.e.. Gill nets are allowable for fishing but only in a canoe and not for Salmon. Canoe’s were the type of vessel used and Salmon were not introduced until the end of the 20th century).

This method of settling disagreements will bring a Cain and logical solution to the problem while both honoring the intent of the treaty and the condition present at the time of the treaty’s ratification. Any other solution is not fair or just for the tribes involved and the existing market conditions for other non-tribal citizens. Treaties were written to protect the rights of the tribes involved not give them a competitive advantage in an evolving and changing society.

“The POWERS NOT delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor Prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, OR TO THE PEOPLE!” (* ” Article X ” US Constitution)

Game, Set, Match! What more needs to be said! At least you would think that said it all. Yet, the Federal Gov’t grows & grows, performing more and more the programs and services that constitutionally belong in the hands of the individual States or the privet sector.

The Democrats are honest to the fact that they are for bigger Gov’t. While the Republicans also keep their promise of less Gov’t (“only slightly less than the Democrats”). Is it not a shame that this is the only promise they have ever kept? Neither party offers to give you a smaller Gov’t, that would mean less power and less control over your life. The Constitution set the limits for the Federal Gov’t and the Supreme Court is charged to uphold and defend the Constitution. That is where the problem begins.

When both parties pack the benches of the Supreme Court with judges that would rather follow their interpretation of the Constitution as a living, breathing document. When they should follow the clearly published intent of the Constitution’s authors and the founders of this Country. The Supreme Court has a couple of constitutionalist Justices who tend to be in decent on most decisions, while the rest of the court follows a personal agenda and ignores the Constitution unless it supports their cause or party.

Our founders published their thought and intent in hundreds of papers, articles, Documents and debates, including the Federalist/Anti-Federalist Papers. If you wish to get an insight to what was intended in the Constitution this is required reading. You will see that Thomas Jefferson and others warned us of what would happen if we let our Gov’t buy our votes with programs & services. We would become dependent on them to feed us and give us shelter like a nursing mother. We would continually give up more of our freedoms for the current definition of the “public good” or the “publics best interest” and wind up becoming what it was that our founders ran away from to begin with.

Remember the words of JFK “ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country”. That spirit of pride and honor comes from a Gov’t that you can trust and control not fear. The Federal Gov’t was established to support and defend the State with no controlling legal authority over the people. The States were to retain controlling authority over it’s citizens and provide the services and regulations those citizens live by. Citizens then have the freedom to move to the state that gives them the level of services they want and the laws they prefer to live under or the choice to try and change them.

Next Page »