In a stunning reversal to the Obama Administration and the Progressive movement, the Supreme Court today declared the "Tax the Top 2%" legislation to be unconstitutional! A flagship measure of the Obama Campaign and the Occupy Wall Street thugs was described as "unfair in the way it would be applied to different households"!
A news story that one would certainly expect from a democratic republican government where every citizen is treated equally -- RIGHT!
Sorry, not so, only a JOKE, this was the lead article on today's Drudge report. It is a news article from of all places --- Socialist France.
France's Constitutional Council on Saturday rejected a 75 percent upper income tax rate to be introduced in 2013 in a setback to Socialist President Francois Hollande's push to make the rich contribute more to cutting the public deficit.
The Council ruled that the planned 75 percent tax on annual income above 1 million euros ($1.32 million) - a flagship measure of Hollande's election campaign - was unfair in the way it would be applied to different households.
...
While the tax plan was largely symbolic and would only have affected a few thousand people, it has infuriated high earners in France, prompting some such as actor Gerard Depardieu to flee abroad. The message it sent also shocked entrepreneurs and foreign investors, who accuse Hollande of being anti-business.
Finance Minister Pierre Moscovici said the rejection of the 75 percent tax and other minor measures could cut up to 500 million euros in forecast tax revenues but would not hurt efforts to slash the public deficit to below a European Union ceiling of 3 percent of economic output next year.
So much like President Obama's "hate tax the rich" plan, this Tax would be only a tiny effect on the French deficit. The possible 500 million euro "top tax" is a tiny fraction of the $39 billion he is proposing:
President François Hollande, a Socialist who was elected this year on a pro-growth platform, presented a budget on Friday that would produce the biggest cut in the public deficit in 30 years while raising the top rate for the wealthiest taxpayers to 75 percent from the current 41 percent. ...
Mr. Hollande’s budget finds the extra $39 billion by raising French taxes still further, upsetting businessmen and the middle class. About $13 billion will come from new taxes on corporations and an additional $10 billion from new income taxes, including a new higher rate of 45 percent on incomes over $193,000 and a controversial, largely symbolic and supposedly temporary wealth tax of 75 percent on earnings of over $1.3 million. Those higher taxes, too, have been criticized by business leaders as a large disincentive for talented people to work in France, criticisms echoed by the opposition center-right parties.
In fact the true impact on the deficit will probably be not only much less than anticipated, but has proved the old phrase "if you want something to go away, TAX it". Several French millionaires, like Gerard Depardieux, have started leaving the country and applying for citizenship elsewhere. Their money will no longer be in France to tax. Thus perhaps having a significantly negative impact on tax revenues, rather than positive.
France's luxury property market has hit a selling 'panic' as millionaires rush to flee the socialist government's looming tax hikes, a leading estate agent has revealed.More than 400 Paris homes worth more than €1million have been put on the market since President Francois Hollande came to power in May - more than double the same period last year.
Many of France's super-rich want to escape to 'wealth-friendly' countries like Britain, Switzerland and Luxembourg.
Time after time the progressive policies are shown not to work. The big problem is ... we all have to suffer through their repeated attempts to try it again.
Liberals reflexively decry gun violence and call "to end the proliferation of guns". But then Texas Democratic Executive Committee Member John Cobarruvias tweets "Can we now shoot the #NRA and everyone who defends them? #PrayForNewton— John Cobarruvias (@BayAreaHouston) December 14, 2012". Perhaps its time to question the sincerity of some?
In a speech I recently heard by Steve Sutton, he was analyzing liberals and conservatives. The first part of that speech was:
There are two types of liberals, first, those who really want to help people. And they believe the way to do that is to do it through the liberal policies that they believe in. If you talk with them about it and say "all you want to do is redistribute wealth", they say "well yeah, thats exactly what I want to do".
They are sincere, they mean well, but they are wrong on virtually every public policy issue, but thats' their motivation, to help people. There are other liberals who know better. They know their policies do not work. But they work politically. So they are not about helping people, they are about winning elections, acquiring power and telling you what to do. And there is no discussing with them, they are just evil and you must defeat them. There is no compromise, there is no debate, there is no sincerity.
Evidence of that insincerity, and political use of policies they know do not work, is no where better seen than in their autonomic response to a tragedy. They follow a "good for me but not for thee" approach. As can be seen in some of the actions vs talk of some of the biggest proponents of gun control, Dianne Feinstein, Chuck Schumer and Barbara Boxer.
Also, a check of Pistol License records shows that Senator Schumer possesses an "unrestricted" pistol permit, a rarity in New York City. Licenses are distributed in different categories in the Big Apple: Target Permits allow only use of a firearm at a licensed firing range; Premises Permits allow weapons to be kept in a home or apartment; Restricted Permits allow the gunowner to carry their firearms concealed but only within the purview of their job (security, jewelers, armored car guards, etc.). So it's evident that Senator Schumer has two sets of rules -- one for Americans and one for himself.
"Less than 20 years ago, I was the target of a terrorist group. It was the New World Liberation Front. They blew up power stations and put a bomb at my home when my husband was dying of cancer and the bomb was set to detonate around 2 ‘o clock in the morning, but it was a construction explosive that doesn’t detonate when it drops below freezing. It doesn’t usually freeze in San Francisco, but on this night it dropped below freezing and the bomb didn’t detonate.
"I was very lucky, but I thought of what might have happened. Later the same group shot out all the windows of my home and I know the sense of helplessness that people feel. I know the urge to arm yourself, because that’s what I did. I was trained in firearms. When I walked to the hospital when my husband was sick, I carried a concealed weapon. I made the determination that if somebody was going to try to take me out I was going to take them with me. Now having said all of that, that was period of time ago and I’ve watched through these 20 years as terrorism has increased both on the far extremist left and the far extremist right in this country."
And throughout that time, her line has been the same: her life is vital and worth protecting; yours is mundane and can wait your turn. When she was mayor of San Francisco, she revoked all civilian carry permits – but got her's converted to a “police” permit.
Her “training” was no more involved that what all of us carry permit holders get.
You find this level of hypocrisy throughout the gun control movement; the lists of prominent gun-grabbers who’ve gotten themselves carry permits, or wangled permits for their bodyguards, or who’ve been busted with illegal guns, is legendary among 2nd Amendment Rights activists…
In the vein of "never let a crisis go to waste" Jerrold Nadler (NY) states
A veteran Democratic lawmaker believes the nation will go along with stronger gun control laws if President Obama “exploits” the Newtown, Conn., tragedy and nudges Congress to action.
Harry Reid has also had concealed carry when he felt threatened, as he states in videos uploaded in 2010 to his website. In contrast to most Democrats, he has been supported by the NRA and supported the NRA 2nd Amendment issues in the past. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flbzbFbKxK0#!
Reid: “When I was Chairman of the Nevada Gaming Commission, I had a lot of bad people after me and I carried a gun every place I went”
In the past, Reid has touted the rights of gun owners and eagerly sought the NRA's endorsements, contributions and praise. In 2004, Reid was one of the rare Democrats to be endorsed by the NRA. In 2009 he sought to please the powerful lobby by supporting a controversial bill to allow gun owners with concealed weapon permits to cross state lines.
.... After this latest tragedy at Sandy Hook that left 20 children dead, Reid took a timid step forward, saying it was time to “engage in a meaningful conversation and thoughtful debate about how to change laws and culture that allow violence to grow." Hinting at a softening of his position, he said that as we discuss how best to protect our nation’s children, “every idea should be on the table.” But for the gun control advocates in his office on Tuesday, Reid’s faint-hearted call for reform was not nearly enough. With alarm clocks in hand, they said the time for discussion was long past; they wanted action. They said it was time for Senator Reid to stand up to the NRA and to use his leadership to protect our children, not the gun manufacturers.
When the question of personal security arises, they choose to make the rational decision for themselves to take the one step that has real meaning in their self defense. They arm themselves, or get armed security, as do so many bleating Hollywood voices (herehere ) of the the gun withholding movement. But when the political posturing and power brokering begins, then everyone else's rights are abridged and told to go without.
Next: What do statistics about guns and conceal carry say.
Last week evil ran abhorrently free. As expected it has been instantly grasped by those opposed to self defense with klaxon calls for yet more redundant government control, rather than moral control. Effective solutions will never come from denial and violations to constitutional rights. Only further advancement of authoritarian central control will be achieved! There were three tragic events, here is the case of Jacob Tyler Roberts, who killed two people in the crowded Clackamas Town Center mall in suburban Portland, Ore.
Clackamas County Sheriff Craig Roberts said earlier today on "Good Morning America" that he believes Roberts went into the mall with the goal of killing as many people as he could. "I believe, at least from the information that's been provided to me at this point in time, it really was a killing of total strangers. To my knowledge at this point in time he was really trying, I think, to kill as many people as possible."
While his stolen AR-15 rifle had briefly jammed, police said he had quickly gotten it working again. So there was no apparent reason for his rampage to have stopped. Add yet another count to the number of laws he broke without being impeded in his intent. So much for laws stopping him. However there was an armed legal carry citizen there.
"As I was going down to pull I saw someone in the back of the charlotte move and I knew if I fired and missed I could hit them." Meli took cover inside a nearby store. He never pulled the trigger. He stands by that decision. "I'm not beating myself up cause I didn't shoot him," said Meli. "I know after he saw me I think the last shot he fired was the one he used on himself." The gunman was dead, but not before taking two innocent lives with him and taking the innocence of everyone else. "I don't ever want to see anyone that way ever," said Meli. "It just bothers me."
The fact that this even occurred was completely lacking from almost all main stream media accounts (exemplifying the meaning of "low-information" voters). Of course the official reason will never be stated that a legal carry citizen was what stopped or might have stopped a rampaging lunatic criminal. So the "official statement" reads: http://news.msn.com/us/man-accused-in-ore-mall-shooting-wanted-to-travel
Clackamas County Sheriff Craig Roberts said the fact that more people weren't killed was due to several factors. The suspect's gun jammed at one point; the mall implemented an immediate lockdown; and a large number of officers arrived on-scene quickly, "curtailing the suspect's ability to move around the mall." "Ten thousand people in the mall at one time kept a level head. They got themselves out of the mall. They helped others get out, and there are just a number of heroes that took the time to help people get out," the sheriff said. "It was really about a full group of people coming together to make a difference."
Perhaps the new law in Michigan, if it gets signed, might help prevent mass shootings from ever happening in School's there. It has specific additional training requirements for the specific permit extensions. But then would the media ever report it having been a success? Or will it be the flaming target of every self defense opposition member of the main stream media and politicizing pundit/politician? Is that a redundancy? Evil prevails when good men do nothing. Fortunately for those in an Oregon Mall, there was a man who didn't "do nothing".
1) The Threat of Al Qaeda and Muslim Extremism
Security seems not to be one of the top three concerns for voter this year. But unforeseen events (unforeseen by some at least) often reset those hot buttons. Two years ago Representative McCollum told us that Al Qaeda was no longer a threat to the United States. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPfDy4u8ar4
It was a wrong and dangerous answer then, and I believe current events in Benghazi and elsewhere have borne that out with resounding clarity.
And in fact that mistaken belief was directly addressed in a recent speech given at the 2012 BGA Annual Luncheon, where CBS News Correspondent Lara Logan said
"I knew we were being lied too, and I know the American people were being mislead".
Eleven years later, “they” still hate us, now more than ever, Logan told the crowd. The Taliban and al-Qaida have not been vanquished, she added. They’re coming back.
…“There is this narrative coming out of Washington for the last two years,” Logan said. It is driven in part by “Taliban apologists,” who claim “they are just the poor moderate, gentler, kinder Taliban,” she added sarcastically. “It’s such nonsense!”
In front of the Chicago audience, Logan contended that the terrorist presence in Afghanistan is continually understated. She scoffed at the numbers routinely used by many in the government and think-tank communities to describe the Taliban’s presence in country.
At the start, she lauded her 60 Minutes boss, executive producer Jeff Fager, for providing the admonition that she seek the facts on the story and let them lead her to a conclusion, rather than go out to prove a preordained thesis.
Hmmm, preordained thesis, the media sets the agenda rather than letting the facts set the story. Oh well that's for another story. Maybe CBS did learn something after Dan Rather.
2) Extreme on partisanship
Partisanship can be expressed in many ways. It is does not require an unpleasant attitude, or screams and shouts. It can be simply a softly immovable demand to hold the party line (she is Nancy's chosen house whip), carrying the party water, and never considering options presented by non-supporter of that party line. If you listen to the presentations from Representative McCollum you will hear the constant refrain of that party line. The Obama slogan of "Forward" and "Not going back to those failed policies".
She, like Obama, does not refer to the last four years under the mantle of Obama, but to those prior years before Obama took office. That flies in the face of studies at the Fed: Doing the math: Obama recovery still the worst in decades
In fact, an October 2011 paper by the Atlanta Fed concluded that “U.S. history provides no support for linking low employment and high unemployment in the current recovery with the financial crisis of 2007—2008.”
But playing the blame game is number one in the current game plan.
If your hot issue this election is "working together to get things done", and it is for many many Minnesotans, then I suggest voting for Tony Hernandez. Rep Betty McCollum may simply not want to work together with Republicans as shown in her depiction of "Tea Party Republicans who want to destroy our economy". Regardless of whether you also believe that to be true, does it bode well for an ability to work with Republicans to "get things done", beyond limiting Military Bands?
3) Economy
Remember the housing crisis, and Freddie and Fannie leading the charge into the failed loans?
When the Bush Administration was working to get some oversight and control of the problems in 2004-2005, Betty McCollum signed on to a letter, June 28, 2004 telling President Bush
We have been concerned that the Administration’s legislative proposal regarding the GSEs would weaken affordable housing performance by the GSEs, by emphasizing only safety and soundness. While the GSEs’ affordable housing mission is not in any way incompatible with their safety and soundness, an exclusive focus on safety and soundness is likely to come, in practice, at the expense of affordable housing.
Or Betty McCollum's view of how to manage a budget, its just a piece of paper, its the appropriations (spending, that which we all know we are doing to much of) that counts. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mP_6IAEeNNw
Whether it's rejecting "too big to fail" or getting our debt in control, Betty McCollum has had 12 years in Congress to work on it. Having debt go up nearly triple (2.86 times), and unemployment double, the track record during Betty McCollum's tenure, combined with her attitude toward the budget, tells us she has not been an effective voice for economic recovery. See the State Fair debate for reasons why Tony Hernandez would provide better leadership on the avalanche of economic issues heading towards us with the impending fiscal cliff.
"Can the U.S. achieve energy independence? If so, what steps do we need to take for that to happen and how long do you think it will take?"
Betty McCollum responded with:
But clearly the U.S. must reduce its dependence on foreign oil and fossil fuels in general by greater domestic production of energy that is clean and abundant — wind, solar, geothermal, hydroelectric power and bio-fuels.
Tony Hernandez
Also alternative energy — I believe we have to advance our research and development on the university system level to explore alternative energy methods and also to find ways that they can be marketable and successful.
As someone who does work in research and development (though not in this field), I have great interest in development of "alternative" energy systems (I have for 35 years). However as most any scientist will tell you, and the recent spate of market failures has demonstrated, we are nowhere near a point of simply turning them on and replacing all or even a large portion of our energy needs. They may become important sources with research and development (and there are a lot of exciting possibilites out there). But simply rushing to production with them has resulted in enormous losses for the tax payer and the economy, and ultimately could setback the advancement of alternatives badly. Abundant is something (even though we are called the Saudi Arabia of air) that will take significant developments that have not yet occurred, to exploit. Not understanding that is a severe impediment to make good decisions.
This is another case where if you are looking for the candidate who will be most effective, you should look at Tony Hernandez.
For those who might still be thinking about marking that box to vote for Barack Obama, here are several things you must consider before making that move.
1) Benghazi
This issue alone should be sufficient to say no. This not only shows an incredible level of incompetence, but violates the "we leave nobody behind" that Barack Obama stated after Hurricane Sandy. This is the motto of Military personnel who go where others flee. When they hear gunfire they rush to help. Anyone, military or not, who considers this and doesn't have a burning feeling of pain in their chest just isn't thinking clearly. The juxtaposition of Obama's use of the phrase has, and should, disturb everyone, when studying the events at Benghazi..
The security personnel in Benghazi had painted a laser mark on the attackers outside the consulate. This mark would have made possible a response by the drones or the AC-130 routine had they been allowed to zero in on it. The member of the security team who was on the roof of the consulate, spraying machine gun fire down on the attackers, continually asked for backup from the AC-130. It never came.
The team was in constant radio contact with their headquarters. In fact, at least one member of the team was on the roof of the annex manning a heavy machine gun when mortars were fired at the CIA compound. The security officer had a laser on the target that was firing and repeatedly requested back-up support from a Spectre gunship, which is commonly used by U.S. Special Operations forces to provide support to Special Operations teams on the ground involved in intense firefights.
One of the former SEALs was actively painting the target. That means that Specter WAS ON STATION! Probably an AC130U. A ground laser designator is not a briefing pointer laser. You do not "paint" a target until the weapons system/designator is synched; which means that the AC130 was on station.
Only two places could have called off the attack at that point; the WH situation command (based on POTUS direction) or AFRICOM commander based on information directly from the target area.
If that SEAL was actively "painting" a target; something was on station to engage! And the decision to stand down goes directly to POTUS!
This is far bigger than Watergate.
The second worst feeling in the world has to be the platform crew being desperately asked for help, given a clear target and then having to stand down and watch your fellow Americans die.
The worst has to be the team on the ground knowing that the President just left you to die.
We do not know for certain, as unlike the night of Hurricane Sandy, the video that night of the WH situation room was never released. However it would appear likely that Barak Obama went to bed that night and left the military to die. One interpretation of the executive priveldge coverup (repeatedly sending out Susan Rice and many others to say it was a spontaneous demonstration over a movie, when they had been on the phone with front line personnel for seven hours, knowing beyond a shadow of a doubt that it wasn't) is that its probably evidence that Obama knows the mistake is staggering. Watergate cost no one's life, but did cause Nixon to resign from the Presidency! And justifiably so. 2) Abysmal Energy Policy November surprise: EPA planning major post-election anti-coal regulation
President Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency has devoted an unprecedented number of bureaucrats to finalizing new anti-coal regulations that are set to be released at the end of November, according to a source inside the EPA.
More than 50 EPA staff are now crashing to finish greenhouse gas emission standards that would essentially ban all construction of new coal-fired power plants. Never before have so many EPA resources been devoted to a single regulation. The independent and non-partisan Manhattan Institute estimates that the EPA’s greenhouse gas coal regulation will cost the U.S. economy $700 billion.
The rush is a major sign of panic by environmentalists inside the Obama administration. If Obama wins, the EPA would have another four full years to implement their anti-fossil fuel agenda. But if Romney wins, regulators will have a very narrow window to enact a select few costly regulations that would then be very hard for a President Romney to undo.
Environmentalists at the EPA pulled this trick before in 2000 when the Clinton administration rushed out a finding that Mercury emissions from power plants were a growing public health threat pursuant to the Clean Air Act. That finding did not regulate power plants itself, but it did force the Bush administration to begin a lengthy regulatory process. The Obama EPA has estimated that this regulation alone will cost the U.S. economy $10.9 billion a year.
The failure in his policies, the statements that he would bankrupt anyone trying to build a coal plant, the ruthless regulatory environment all makes for an economic failure model. The environmentalist agenda has been in clear ascendancy, with growing clarity that its the wrong path. This is one promise he has kept. He told you he would make your energy bill skyrocket, and he has.
Speaking of which, the IRS has asked a federal judge to intervene to stop Solyndra’s bankruptcy plan. They claim that the company is nothing more than a tax dodge for its major investors — including 2008 Obama bundler George Kaiser.
“These are solar panels we are now seeing reports that said they worked as long as you didn’t put them in the sun,” said Rep. Cory Gardner, R-Colo. “Now the question is did the (Department of Energy) — did they know something that the rest of should have known? Did Abound not tell the DOE something? These are questions that need to be answered.”
The Fast and Furious scandal.
There are too many of these to list them all.
4) Economy
While he continues to blame George W. Bush for everything wrong with the economy Barack Obama has been presiding over for 4 years, Obama admits he is bad at math. I would submit he is too unskilled to be able to be allowed to continue attempting to to restore an economy he has demonstrated no ability to understand.
In fact, an October 2011 paper by the Atlanta Fed concluded that “U.S. history provides no support for linking low employment and high unemployment in the current recovery with the financial crisis of 2007—2008.”
One Final Point
And lest one might be tempted to ignore all presented so far, look to one of Barack Obama's biggest supporter blocks from 2008. They have realized the failure of the last four years for young people in school and those starting out on building their lives.
In the past four years, we have changed. We once supported President Obama. Obama made many good promises. Obama seemed non-partisan and willing to bring about change. He was charismatic. We were excited to see what would come of his administration. Sadly, Obama has failed us, instituting policies that have negatively affected us.
If that's not enough...
If you remain unconvinced still, then there is the massive compendium of 100 reasons available from Hugh Hewitt. Hewitt spends the entire 3 hours carefully going over his 100 reasons to vote for Mitt Romney or against President Obama. Some of the reasons are positives (if elected, Mitt Romney will do such-and-such), many are negative (Obama has failed at x, y, and z, he has not made good on promises a, b, and c, etc).
Study the issues well, and remember to vote on Tuesday Nov 6th
In every political season there are thefts reported of campaign signs. Its a favorite pastime for the thoughtfully challenged of either party. The media often does a great job at portraying this as not "politically motivated", its just kids, or a moral equivalency argument. However that belies the facts. Example, an unreported, to police that is, incident one afternoon in Saint Paul, of a woman with a young child in her back car seat. She pulled up, jumped out, looked both ways, yanked a Republican candidates sign out and jumped back in her car, quickly driving off. She didn't see the people in the living room window watching her. Sign theft is a fundamental attack on the constitution and the individual right for free expression. Dismissing it as "just kids" or "both sides do it" ignores reality and the thuggish techniques of silencing.
I have had 4 incidents of thefts of signs in my yard this year. There were 3 thefts where the thief took the Vote Yes on Marriage sign only. These were done after dusk and before 10PM. This Sunday morning 11/4/2012 at 3:35AM (or possibly 2:35AM with the time change) two men drove up and stole all 9 of the signs from my yard (Mitt Romney, Kurt Bills, Tony Hernandez CD4, Duane "Swede" Johnson SD43, Kevin Klein HD43B, Rich Bennett ISD622, Tim Tinglestad Supreme Court, Vote Yes Voter ID, and Vote Yes Marriage Amendment). In this case, I was recording their actions. Just as an analytical note, given the difference in the time of the theft, I believe the earlier thefts were from a different individual or individuals. So if you recognize the people, or their car, please give a call to the Oakdale Police.
A brighter version
The most frustrating thing for me, in the discussions/articles I have seen, is that I put up signs for candidates all around CD4. So more than most I look at signs, from both sides, to look for placements and where coverage is inadequate. In the areas I drive, I have never seen any Vote No or Democrat sign dumped, defaced, or missing. Ok, maybe I might not trip to a few missing, but defaced, dumped, pulled out and lying down, I'd notice. However damage, removal, and defacing has been extremely common on Vote Yes and Republican signs. When people tell me their signs were stolen, I tell them to report it to the police, though few ever do. We will probably never know the real statistics. I know opposing readers will say, "but your just ignoring or don't see the other side". And it is human nature, that if it doesn't fit their world view, they tend to force things into the model that "its always the other side..". Until something comes crashing in to upset the world as they know it. However, I specifically look for, stop, and often repair, every down/defaced sign I see [once I know whose it is and would have permission to do so]. I can only comment that, Pioneer Press articles aside, I have never found one to be other than Vote Yes or Republican when I have stopped. That's a whole lot of improbability.
Here are some of pictures I have taken as I have been putting up and repairing signs:
Dettmer sign uprooted and tossed amongst the still standing Democrat signs.
The thieves must have been scared off by something in mid theft here on Hwy 36. They took the Supreme Court Dan Griffith sign, had uprooted a Dettmer sign and were attempting to uproot a 4x8 Tony Hernandez sign. They left with only one post pulled out (no ground pushed up behind it as would be done by wind) and left the Dettmer sign.
In front of the Hernandez campaign office they only left the re-bar, I later found the sign with a boot print in the middle of it, down the road. Many others have simply gone missing, re-bar and all.
Showing their complete ignorance of the issues, and projecting their own feelings and attitudes, has been common on the amendment issues. This was on Hwy 36, right next to the Union Hall where the entire Democrat roster of signs (as well as Vote NO) still stands, undisturbed and un-defiled.
Tom and Beth Priem said concern over repeated tears in an Obama lawn sign in their front yard led to concern about vandals, KXAN.com reports. Beth Priem sat up one morning with a video camera hoping to catch the culprit and discovered the problem was actually something with four legs. (Video included)
The claims do come from both sides, as the Pioneer Press write:
Free speech is at the heart of our political process;
we may not agree, but our democratic principles -- to say nothing of Minnesota Nice -- hold us to a law-abiding standard of respect and civility.
Shaw's report noted that Crista Walsh of Woodbury recently was driving by an empty lot when she came across about 30 "Vote No" signs, along with others for Democratic candidates. She returned one "Vote No" sign to a neighbor, whose sign had been stolen. That night, it was stolen again.
"It seems that we should be so much better than this," Walsh said. Indeed, we should.
Thieves have swiped his "Vote Yes" signs twice, and some neighbors have been hit three times.
They got letters from the thief. The letters purportedly are from a closeted gay man, angry and hurt by their signs.
Each letter included personal information. The Goetsches' letter said, "You don't know me, but I know your parents ... I went to school with your daughter."
The writer continued: "I don't believe Jesus would approve of intentionally hurting any of his children -- and that is what this amendment does ... Voting 'yes' doesn't make you a good Christian -- it makes you a bigot."
Herb's wife Judy scoffed at that argument. "It says we are good people, but if we don't think the way he does, we are bigots," she said.
"For every one he steals, I am going to put up two," Herb Goetsch said.
"It has scared us a little bit," said Goetsch. "What is next? Are they going to start breaking windows, harming our property or physically harming us?"
Putnam, the distributor of "Vote Yes" signs, estimates he has given out more than 400 signs. Of those, about half have been stolen.
"It's frustrating," he said.
And there is ample evidence of such fear being well founded. Take the case of the horrific beating of Sean Kedzie in Wisconsin.
A brutal beating is blamed on politics.
State Senator Neil Kedzie's son was attacked last week. He says he was beat up because of a Mitt Romney yard sign.
Kedzie doesn't have any question about what prompted the attack.
He says, "It's definitely politically motivated when they say things like F-Romney and Romney sucks and go Obama."
Kedzie was taken to the emergency room by ambulance that night. He says initially doctors thought he may have had a fractured skull and eye socket.
Theft is theft, and thuggish tactics to intimidate and suppress are wrong regardless of who you think you are or what you imagine to be the superiority of your side! Your opinion is yours to express, but you have no right to attempt to silence others who are simply exercising theirs. While I hope the thieves who denied me my rights are caught and punished, I am under no illusion that it is likely. But it would be nice if the signs I put up in my yard, and elsewhere, could be left standing for the an entire election, like those at the Union Hall.
Economics 101 has some very significant Mathematics prerequisites to enable understanding of the subject. So when President Barack Obama tosses around yet another frivolous statement about justifying his view of redistributing wealth one needs to look a little further into his assertion, to see the paucity of his claims.
From Obama's Jobs Speech made to a joint session of Congress Sept 20111
Should we keep tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires? Or should we put teachers back to work so our kids can graduate ready for college and good jobs? Right now, we can't afford to do both. This isn't political grandstanding. This isn't class warfare. This is simple math.
Evidently President Obama cannot do the simple math required to recognize that, much as this approach appeals to the baser side of human nature, the real math (explained here) is: there is insufficient money with the rich, even if you took it ALL! It only amounts to about $1 trillion of Obama's $5 trillion of debt he has racked up in the last 3 1/2 years. I wrote about this earlier in a post that showed the video of Bill Whittle explaining it.
At this point, we've drained every penny from the wealthy, so we're going to have to ask everyone else to chip in $40 per person. That covers us through the end of the year.
See how easy it is! Michael Moore and the left are right! If we just took all the money from the rich, we could fund all of our wonderful government programs for a whole year! Of course, the problem then becomes that January 1st is here again and we've got another year to pay for in front of us.
But having taken every penny from "the wealthy" to barely pay for just one year, what do we do then? Keep in mind that the vast majority of Americans will have lost their jobs given that we decimated those "fat cat" companies who just so happen to also be our country's largest employers.
This is the short-sightedness of the liberal left's class warfare. They guarantee their political success by promising you goodies from someone else's pockets. But we've followed their prescription for so long now that we're at a crisis point. Our budget is unsustainable. Pretending otherwise is beyond foolish - it's economic suicide.
This shows the disingenuous nature of Obama's arguments. They really are simply class warfare, to pander to a block of voters to help him stay in power, and continue to improve his golf game.
Fortunately for our country we have some people with skills and the competence to understand the math running to replace Obama in the White House. They have the three R's needed for our Countries future, Romney Ryan 'N Recovery.
And once we get started on that, we have a huge need to replace those in Congress that have been supporting the math challenged massive spending spree approach. Here in MNCD4 we need to retire Representative Betty McCollum whose support of the non-existant Obama Economics plan was discussed earlier.
The most interesting part about the debate of the 47% Romney comment is the comparison of what the press did with reporting it and the leaked Obama tape. They rallied the wagons around Obama and sent out the wolves (e.g. assassins) against Romney. But a second important consideration is what it exposes about the candidates. For Obama it is an exposure of a core foundational belief. For Romney it was an observation of a political reality. A reality we will see is an actual claimed strategy for Obama.
"And my suggestion, I guess, would be that the trick - and this is one of the few areas where I think there are technical issues that have to be dealt with as opposed to just political issues - I think the trick is figuring out how do we structure government systems that pool resources and hence facilitate some redistribution," he said, "because I actually believe in redistribution, at least at a certain level, to make sure everybody's got a shot."
It is not really a huge surprise, as Obama has made similar, admissions before. From "you didn't build that", to Joe the Plumber, we see Barack Obama's deeply held belief in redistribution through government. Forcibly taking from one segment of the population that he both despises and demonizes and yet has become a member of (but doesn't seem to suffer from the demonization or forced taking there of, unlike small business owners do), and encouraging the other segment to increasingly demand ever more taking.
NBC was actually refusing to air this until well after it was obvious it was Barack Obama, as is shown in the video of the event, that actually puts face to match the singularly well known voice http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KusnNQBQkwo
Perhaps they learned more caution from the doctored tapes, fabricating a false story, they had created to demagogue those who didn't fit their ideology, with Zimmerman and then again with a previous Romney tape about his visit to a sandwich shop.
In his leaked tape, Mitt Romney's basic claim was:
There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them
It is clear that Romney had stated an analysis (one which the media has created a distraction argument about by over-analyzing the minutia), that has been often presented throughout our history. And he was in good company in stating the issue. In a phrase attributed variously to Alexander Tytler or to Alexis de Tocqueville
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing
“A lady asked Dr. Franklin Well Doctor what have we got a republic or a monarchy. A republic replied the Doctor if you can keep it.”
Or Thomas Jefferson
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."
In fact Romney is simply explaining a statistical observation that Barack Obama describes as a actionable strategy in the complete version that same 1998 Loyola tape.
what I think will re-engage people in politics is if we are doing significant serious policy work around what I will label the working poor, although my definition of working poor is not simply those making minimum wage, but is also families of 4 making $30,000 a year. They are struggling. And to the extent that we are doing research figuring out what kinds of government actions would successfully make their lives better we are then putting together a potential majority coalition to potentially move those agendas forward. One of the good things about welfare reform … it essentially desegregates the welfare population .. vs the working poor which are the other people, now we just have one batch of folks … that is increasingly a majority population
Perhaps some, like Obama, see this not as a serious problem facing the country, a problem that must be reversed to take people out of poverty by creating the environment for a dynamic economy with jobs like we had during the Clinton and Bush eras. But as a goad to force ever more redistribution until everyone is "equal" (except the rulers, like Barack Obama), and no one has a job other than under the government. That would be the ultimate in serfdom, as hinted by Franklin. No avenue for individual initiative, no forward, no hope, no change, the realization of the dystopian society of "Metropolis".
The first debate of the 2012 CD4 election was held at the State Fair Tuesday 8/29. The candidates for US House of Representatives are Tony Hernandez, Betty McCollum, and Steve Carlson.
Tony Hernandez is the endorsed Republican candidate who is the fiscal conservative candidate in the race.
"We need to figure out a way to reform our tax structure, lower our taxes, so that businesses want to come back to America in order to invest,"
Betty McCollum is the long term incumbent, representing the far left constituency of Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi. Betty McCollum is a staunch believer in government involvement and regulation of business. And as she states in the debate,
The fiscal cliff, you know we shouldn't, we shouldn't be in this position we should not be there. We should be having a discussion as President Obama is starting to have with John Behner about putting everything on the table. Tax reform as well as "smart cuts".
Placing the blame on "the Republican Tea Party element" for the issue and the "gridlock". In the debate you will hear "tax reform" translates to tax increases (revenues), and "smart cuts" appear to equate to cuts to the military, and most forms of military advertisement [from other sources here, here, here, here].
Steve Carlson is the returning Independence Party candidate that ran in 2010, as a far distant third, claiming to represent the Tea Party.
As reviewed in MPR's article, this debate centered on those fiscal issues that undoubtedly are primary in everyone's mind. Job's, the economy, debt, and the Stillwater bridge.
Harry Reid has reprised Joe McCarthy's "I have here in my hand.." with the unfounded and un-substatitated claim of "I was told by an extremely credible source that Romney has not paid taxes for ten years ". As the advertisements say, there is no more ruthless collections agency than the IRS. There is no way Mitt Romney could have conceivably not paid the entirety of the taxes due. The IRS would have chased him down with audits and investigations.
He’s refused to release his tax returns, as we know. [Yes he has, all that are required, just not "all" of them to provide opponents with excessive opportunity for slander like Harry Reid] If a person coming before this body wanted to be a cabinet officer, he couldn’t be if he did the same refusal Mitt Romney does about tax returns. So the word’s out that he hasn’t paid any taxes for ten years. Let him prove that he has paid taxes, because he hasn’t. We already know from one partial tax return that he gave us, he has money hidden in Bermuda, the Cayman Islands, and a Swiss bank account. Not making that up, that’s in the partial year that he gave us. Mitt Romney makes more money in a single day than the average middle-class family makes in two years–or more.
Wait, wait, let me get this straight -- He has money "hidden" in completely legal foreign investments? But Harry "found them" on Mitt Romney's publicly released IRS submitted tax form? Real investigative journalism. That would seem to be the least well kept secret "hiding" of assets ever. What is Harry Reid accusing him of? Hiding money offshore so it doesn't get taxed, when its ON HIS TAX FORM! Mitt Romney's tax forms detail the foreign investments and the applicable foreign taxes and subsequent additional US taxes paid on those investments. Hardly a case of tax evasion, as Harry Reid tries to impugn, more like full disclosure.
Harry Reid said these tall tales (otherwise known as dissembling or lies) from the floor of the Senate. That give him constitutional protection from the possibility of suit for libel. A most despicable way of slandering someone without having to be accountable. If Harry Reid has seen unreleased tax forms of Mitt Romney, he has just admitted to a crime.
When Mitt Romney's father died and he inherited the estate, Mitt gave it all away [heard on Hugh Hewitt's show from author of On The Brink]. More on Mitt Romney's altruism and generosity here and here. He further eschewed and donated salary and other benefits as governor and head of the Olympics. His altruism and dedication is a truer testament to the man than baseless accusations from well known serial dissemblers.
Reid, who also refuses to release his own tax returns, isn’t just a hypocrite and a slanderer. He’s also a political idiot. Until these attacks, Romney was on the defensive over his tax returns. Now Romney can paint his decision to keep them private as a principled stand against unscrupulous opponents. Reid has handed the high ground to Romney in this fight with his scurrilous lies. Reid has all but ruined Obama’s strategy of making Romney look secretive and weird.
Politics is a full contact sport, but it shouldn't include libelous gutter snipe attacks of desperation.
I, like many others in the country who want clear, concise and factual information subscribe to the Heritage newsletter. I got this missive in the mail this morning
Obama: Look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart.
With this I immediately thought of a friend of mine who had left a corporate job and started a business in his basement. He spent years there, developing the complete product with he and his wife's own genius, inventiveness, and sweat, before moving to an office. The business grew but always had issues with regulations. Whether obscure sales tax implications and penalties, or other even more painful ones. The last four years he has become even more vocal to me about his complaints of government intervention in the form of regulations. His background is not one of a conservative family, in fact very, very, much the opposite, but he has come to a strong limited government viewpoint through his personal experiences.
While I often helped him in the early days with projects, work, and discussion, I never once thought of it as "I built his business"! The arrogance of such a statement, and the blind misunderstanding of how things develop staggers me.
I had planned on sending him the Heritage link, but he beat me to it in this email exchange.
From F: "What the…"
a link to Obama's speech.
From D: I meant to send that to you this morning, but I wanted to see the reaction... I couldn't quite hear it from here (7 miles away?)
From F: No $#!+. You don’t want to be near me after reading something like that. I pray the People have enough sense to kick this President [deleted original word, sorry F. you went a little overboard] out of office in November before the country goes downhill any further. My partner [his wife, hey its a small business] can't spend any time selling because she spends sooo much of it dealing with our governments BS.
There are many who have made negative (some down right hostile) comments to me about the belief that small businesses suffer greatly at the hands of this governments excessive regulations and do and will vote with their feet. But the reality is, my friend has often remarked about the possibility of moving his business out of the country, the state is a growing certainty, even though it is basically a company of he and his wife.
Spending half your small companies resources on governmental compliance and regulations should be considered ridiculously unreasonable in anyone's book. We need to replace any governmental representative who does not actively participate in reducing this burden, and denounce the attitude that the government built an entrepreneurs business because they voted to build roads. That means replacing progressives that stand for ever larger government.
Did you ever have your spouse buy something very expensive that overdrew your account? Then give you the reasoning that "it was such a good deal I just had to buy it"? Well Will Rossbach had such a moment in a City Council workshop recently.
Maplewood Mayor Will Rossbach made an astounding comment as they were discussing the interest rate the city might be able to get for more loans.
"We could probably say however that if we did actually bond now we would get a rate that around what we got before? … And, umm, you know its a little bit like going to Walmart I guess, but uh, the more we would bond for the more we'd save…If we're saving $20,000 a year on $4.3 million, we'd be saving 40 on twice that?"
From watching the video of the comment, I am not sure the city staffer giving the report knew what to do with that comment. The truth is that you save by not spending money you don't have.
Maplewood held the workshop on June 25 to reconsider the bonding bill they had proposed to spend $9.5 million dollars to build new fire (they just closed a couple that probably could have been updated much less expensively) and police facilities. A petition had been submitted to call the bonding to a referendum vote by the citizens. The City had dismissed the petition by disqualifying 70 signatures. The bonding company however subsequently had significant concerns about that, and the petition, so the bonding for this year was put on hold. Since they were essentially blocked on the bonding as proposed (either by the petition, or by other points in the presentation that said they really only had about $1.5 million left of their borrowing cap of $10 million bank qualified rate amount, the 1.7666% rate), they were considering two alternative ways around it.
The story is very similar to that of many other cities, among them the City of Scanton, which demonstrates where poor fiscal management can lead.
"Sad that it came down to this," Pugliese [who has worked for Scranton's Department of Public Works for 26 years] said. "I can't understand how it could get this bad. I could never run my household down this low. Don't know how they could run a city down this low."
Amid a dispute with the City Council [Democrat] about raising funds for their cash-strapped Pennsylvania city, the mayor of Scranton faces a lawsuit from union workers after he cut their pay to minimum wage.
"We don't have enough money. That's what it comes down to," Doherty [Democrat, Mayor] told Quijano. After paying city workers, Doherty said Scranton only had $5,000 left and very few options.
But the mayor isn't necessarily a hero. A source in the Scranton city council who spoke on condition of anonymity said the big problem was that the mayor and the city council had agreed to borrow to cover the shortfall but a couple of consultants warned banks not to lend to the city until its recovery plan was approved.
The city council balked because it included a 78% tax hike on businesses [this and loans are part of the Mayor's plan], some of which are already leaving for friendlier climes.
And all from poor budgeting and debt policies.
Full video available from the archives at: Maplewood City Council Manager Workshop June 25, 2012
On Tim Kinley's Speechless Show, he played the video where at the 2012 Democrat DFL State Convention the discussed vote fraud possibilities of a proposed amendment to their party constitution, and voted essentially for the "Voter ID" concept in their caucus presidential balloting.
A woman called in and spoke about her House District endorsing convention where she alleges the following:
Woman: The local DFL convention that was held at North High I myself was participating there. And when we were voting for endorsement for the new open seat for state representative in 43 Phil Trippler as a matter of fact , Chuck Wiger, and John Nephew were looking at everybody's ballots. Ok.
Tim: Why would they look at the ballots? What, Why were they ..
Woman: When we were voting you had to vote to vote for your candidate of of choice and on the back sign your name. If you did not sign your name it did not count. So right there the DFL was demanding voter id at their conventions, see.
Tim: You had to sign your name to the back of the ballot?
Woman: Yes you had to sign your name or it would not be counted. And Phil Trippler, I folded mine up so tiny you know and he sat there behind me and opened my ballot to see who I was voting for. And then I was harassed and bullied to change my vote. Now that's wrong.
Tim: Wow yes it is!
Woman: And the all know they did it.
If this alleged action occurred, that would be a tremendous incursion into open voting. It would go far beyond the Voter ID amendment to changing the secret ballot into an identified ballot, much like what card check for union voting would do.
We need voint integrity, we need Voter ID, and at its heart the DFL knows it!
Minnesota Secretary of State Mark Ritchie is a very vocal critic of the Voter ID Amendment. He spoke strongly against it during the legislative process and is apparently campaigning around the state against the amendment. Yet in the ACLU/LWV/Common Cause Minnesota Supreme Court lawsuit he is named as the defendant. Attorney General Lori Swanson, who would also be "defending" the amendment, is also against the amendment. This could end up being the least well defended case in history.
In his speech Mark Ritchie stated
This is going into the Constitution, it cannot be fixed, it cannot be tweaked, it cannot be corrected, its forever.
Not the words of someone likely to put his entire, or possibly any, effort into supporting legislation that a huge majority, 80%, of Minnesotans want.
Minnesota Majority, a conservative group that’s backing the photo ID amendment, issued a statement predicting the petition will fail. The group’s president, Jeff Davis, noted that it names as defendant Secretary of State Mark Ritchie, a vocal opponent of photo ID. He questioned whether Ritchie, a Democrat, would properly defend the case and said his group or pro-amendment legislators would likely seek to intervene.
We need to have our legislators step up and vigorously defend their work!
Keith Ellison was one of the speakers Saturday morning at the Jun2, 2102 DFl Minnesota State Convention. He spoke of his view of Voter ID. Labeling it an "ugly stain". He also spoke of what he called a "Republican austerity program", apparently blaming it for the latest job numbers.
Ken Martin introduced Keith Ellison:
It is now my pleasure to introduce a true progressive. Keith Ellison is passionate about helping Minnesota communities work together toward solutions to the problems they face. He is working toward a nation of opportunity and fairness where everybody counts and everybody matters. Keith believes in creating a stronger America, which means building a stronger economic future for working Minnesotans. He is working for an America where all men are created equal regardless of their race, gender or who they love. He is committed to creating an electoral system free of corrupting the taint of big money .. corporate money, where politicians are beholding to their constituents, not their corporate contributors. Keith's vision of America is one that all who value equality and fairness should share. The chair of the congressional progressive caucus, and a champion for all, please join me in welcoming the Congressman from the 5th Congressional District, Congressman Keith Ellison.
Keith Ellison:
Thank you Ken. Hey everybody. How you doing DFL. How is the DFL today. Thats good. Cause we got to be all fired up and ready to go. We have a big challenge in front of us right now. And when I think of the challenge that we have. it is a challenge, its simply a challenge between those of us who embrace community and those who say that you are on your own. Those of us who believe that our government has a responsibility to make the rules fair, promote equality, and protect us. And those who believe that you know is all about giving as much money as you can to wealthy and taking as much as you can from the poor. We gotta be in the middle of a divide and we've gotta stand there and call for the American Dream for everyone in this state and in this country. We've gotta stand for the American Dream. Now one element of the American Dream, one element of the American Dream is the right to vote. The right to vote. You know when this country was founded, it was not enough, it was not enough to be a white male to vote. You had to be Protestant and you had to own property. But then there was a revolution. And the Jacksonian revolution came, and then being a white male was good enough to vote. But then we had the civil war, and we defeated the Confederacy, and we said that men could vote. And then women said, wait a minute, what about us, and women won the right to vote in 1920. And then, and then we had some trouble again with the right to vote and so the civil right movement , fought and fought and fought for the right to vote and we got rid of the poll tax, we passed the 1965 voting rights act. And then, young people, young people, give a hand for young people .. young people said look if your gonna send me off to Viet Nam and tell me that I can carry a gun and get shot, but I can't vote, that's bogus. And the 18 year olds won the right to vote. And so if you look at, if you look at America, our great country, we have seen an expanding an expanding right to vote we have been increasing the right for people to participate and to chose their government. And so today this voter id bill is a ugly stain on our trajectory on our right to vote. Expanding the franchise for everyone. So I'm holding in my hand a pledge to vote no. Does, hold it up, if you got one hold it up, hold it up, if you got one get it up, come on now I don't see it. Put it up in the air. If you got one I want ask you to sign it. I signed mine already, it says Keith Ellison. I put my email in there, I put my zip code, and I put my telephone number, and I said I will pledge to vote no. Will you pledge to vote no with me to this ugly Constitutional amendment? Now let me tell you in other states, in other states where they have passed these ugly amendments, ugly things have happened. An 86 year old world war II veteran, somebody who went to defeat Hitler was denied the right to vote in Ohio just a few months ago. Eleven Nuns in Indiana were told that they didn't have Government issued identification card so they told that they could not vote. Thats wrong. Eight six year old Dorothy Cooper of Tennessee. In that state who couldn't vote because of her race, could not vote. But in 1965 she got the right to vote and voted in every election since, was told that she could not vote because she did not have a government issued ID. You know what? This is anti-Minnesota. Its wrong and we've got to fight for the right to vote in Minnesota all the time, every time.
Now look they got me on a timer so I gotta hurry up. But I want to tell you that we have got to have a working pro-job majority in the US Congress. So I need you, thats right a pro-job majority , how 'bout that. You all don't know, now let me just tell ya, we just saw the job numbers in May were not that hot, only about 69,000 jobs created. Did you know that the government cut 13,000 votes under the Republican austerity program? We gotta reject this austerity program and we got have more people that are for jobs, pro-jobs who understand that a Police Officer a Firefighter, a Nurse, a person who check… makes sure our water is clean, those government public workers are just as good, just as valuable, and just as important as anybody else. So what.. we need your help, we need your help to elect Mike Obermueller in the 2nd District, who's gonna take out John Kline. Any body from the 2nd district around here? All right now. We need your help to elect Brian Barnes in the 3rd district. Any body from the 3rd District? Third District over there you guys. We need your help to elect Jim Graves to take out Michele Bachmann in the 6th District. And we need your help to elect Rick Nolan to take out Chip Cravaack in the 8th. We need a pro-job majority, we need a pro-job majority. We need a pro-job majority in Congress, and we need a pro-job majority in the Minnesota House where I was proud to serve with my good friend Paul Thissen over there. So look everybody I'm about to sit down, but I want you to know, that this election, this election does turn on your participation. You are the leaders, you are the vanguard, you are the one's in your neighborhood who everybody knows. We need you to stand for expanding the vote to defeating voter id, and I'd be very happy if you would join me in supporting ranked choice voting which I think is something very good as well. We need to be there for the LGBT community and we need to be there for civil and human rights for all people. Because let me tell you it is true the slogan of my campaign is everybody counts, everybody matters. Say it with me everybody counts, everybody matters, everybody counts, everybody matters. And that is not only an outcome, thats not only standing for civil rights for all, thats not only standing up for working men and women and the right to collectively bargain, thats not only standing up for the environment. It is also engaging people in their own, in their own better life. That going out and reaching out to everybody to let them participate in making this life a better life. It is not just an outcome it is also a process, so you guys get out there and you get everybody to those polls because we gotta to win this thing and we gotta win big. Come on Minnesota let's do it. Thank you very much.
The first interesting feature is that Keith Ellison, who accused Sarah Palin of "over blown rhetoric", would choose to use the rhetoric of "take out" their opponents. Sadly Keith Ellison merely takes advantage of normal figures of speech, used in every day descriptions, for negative political purposes while using essentially equivalent phrases himself. There is nothing wrong in his use of this phrase, only the comical irony of his having condemned others.
So what about the fear mongering over Voter iD? How did his examples stack up? Well not so well...
Paul Carroll, an 86-year-old World War II veteran who has lived in the same Ohio town for four decades, was denied a chance to vote in the state’s primary contests today after a poll worker denied his form of identification, a recently-acquired photo ID from the Department of Veterans Affairs. The poll worker rejected the ID because it did not contain an address, as required by Ohio law. A local Veterans Affairs employee told the Plain Dealer that the decision not to include the address was likely made at the federal level, and because VA IDs are accepted at any location, “the actual address of a veteran isn’t as critical to us.” Carroll was offered a provisional ballot, but the type was too small for him to read and “I was kind of perturbed by then,” he said.
The 12 Nuns in Indiana were told by Sister Julie McGuire, they could not vote in the 2008 Democratic Primary, due to outdated passports.
They had been told they would need the photo id's, but had chosen not to and came to the precinct anyway. "However the convent will make a "very concerted effort" to get proper identification for the nuns in time for the general election."
As for Dorothy Cooper, she went to get her free Voter ID with her birth certificate, which was not her current name. She did not have her marriage license showing her current name. She was only denied getting a voter id card at that time.
"Her lack of a valid marriage license is likely due to the fact that she’s outlived two husbands. Under the Tennessee law, Cooper will still be able to vote via absentee ballot, which does not require photo ID. But standing outside her normal voting precinct, Cooper told the Times Free Press she will miss going there to vote."
So as for actually denying anyone the right to vote, this is simply more of the Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt that is being spread about the Voter ID issue. The people got their problems corrected for the general election, and Dorothy Cooper never was denied voting, just the free id at that time.
Rep. Keith Ellison's idea of fairness is clearly equality of outcome, not opportunity. He is promoting that "Government" creates jobs. Unfortunately for his argument, government really can only foster the creating of an environment where private enterprise can flourish and create jobs. With out that, the government created jobs cannot be created, because there is simply no one and no money to pay for them. Printing money does not create an economy, only those "evil" corporations, small businesses, and farms can do that. Strangle them with excessive punitive regulations from the EPA, and other agencies and you are creating the antithesis of a "pro-jobs" environment.
That Keith Ellison is out of step with the majority of Americans is evident by contrast from a Gallup Poll
The 64% of Americans who say big government will be the biggest threat to the country is just one percentage point shy of the record high, while the 26% who say big business is down from the 32% recorded during the recession.
