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.
