Big government vs private sector explained in two tweets

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly
Twitter

Not everything said on Twitter is meaningless, trivial, and stupid. : )

I think this about sums it up:


Why write a 20 paragraph rant on the subject when just a couple of tweets will do?

Charlie Rangel: We don’t need no stinkin’ Congress

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly
Rangel relaxes

Rangel naps at his ‘tax-free’ Dominican Republic hideaway. Photo via Splash News/Daily Beast

The Observer’s Politicker reports on a recent interview Congressman Rangel did with NY1 in which he expressed support for President Obama going around Congress via the use of executive orders “for everything”:

Congressman Charlie Rangel has a solution for bypassing gridlock in Washington D.C.: executive orders for “everything.”

In an interview last night with NY1, the congressman praised Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s decision to push through the so-called “nuclear option” to end filibusters on most presidential nominees. But he lamented the fact the work-around could not be used for legislation, suggesting the president turn to the executive orders–like the kind used to end the deportation many people who’d entered the country illegally as children.

“You know, the DREAM Act for the kids that came over here and didn’t know their home town, the president did that by executive order. What I did is I’ve taken out the language that he used and I’m gonna see why we can’t use executive orders for everything. What’s he gonna do? Make the Republicans angry? They’re gonna get annoyed? They’re not gonna cooperate?”

He went on to slam the Republican Party for refusing to cooperate–accusing them of acting against the interests of their own constituents.

“A police officer once told me when I was a kid that the worst criminal to deal with is one that doesn’t mind dying,” he said. “And if you take a look at what these Tea Party people have done–recognizing that there’s more sick and poor white folks then there is–but they still are resisting everything that the president wants to do so they can destroy the people in their district in terms of education and jobs, the Congress, the Republican name. And when we had the debt ceiling crisis, they were really prepared to let the United States of America fiscal policy to go in the tubes. How can you talk with people like this?”

And just last week, Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) proposed expanding the use of the nuclear option to beyond just the filibuster on judicial nominees by way of, ya know, actual legislation.

How DARE Republicans disagree with Democrats and President Obama on how best to turn around the economic crisis our country faces – a crisis that has actually gotten WORSE under their watch?  Shame on the GOP for accurately predicting exactly what problems Obamacare would cause.  It was just pure luck they got it right. There can’t possibly be any genuine philosophical differences for disagreement with liberals. Why, conservatives and Republicans just want to “destroy” people. Oh, and raaaaaaaaaacism!

It’s always illuminating when the ‘moderate’ masks of Democrats come off, isn’t it? Their true fascistic faces are revealed in all their ugliness for the country – and the world – to see.  It’s disturbing to watch but necessary. It’s good to know who – and what – you’re really up against.

Related: Obama calls GOP an ‘impediment’ at Seattle fundraiser

Fascist NYT editorial board: #ObamaMisspoke on #Obamacare – but your old plan sucked anyway

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly
Failure to communicate

”What we’ve got here is failure to communicate.” – Captain, Florida Road Prison 36, from the movie ‘Cool Hand Luke’

(Monday AM Update: The thread title has been changed to something even more fitting of what the NYT editorial board wrote. :)  –ST )

Unsurprisingly, the editorial page at the New York Times has lined up with other far left fascists when it comes to who makes decisions on the type of healthcare insurance plan you can have (via Memeorandum). In an editorial titled “Insurance Policies Not Worth Keeping”, the board lectures (bolded emphasis added by me):

Congressional Republicans have stoked consumer fears and confusion with charges that the health care reform law is causing insurers to cancel existing policies and will force many people to pay substantially higher premiums next year for coverage they don’t want. That, they say, violates President Obama’s pledge that if you like the insurance you have, you can keep it.

Mr. Obama clearly misspoke when he said that. By law, insurers cannot continue to sell policies that don’t provide the minimum benefits and consumer protections required as of next year. So they’ve sent cancellation notices to hundreds of thousands of people who hold these substandard policies. (At issue here are not the 149 million people covered by employer plans, but the 10 million to 12 million people who buy policies directly on the individual market.)

But insurers are not allowed to abandon enrollees. They must offer consumers options that do comply with the law, and they are scrambling to retain as many of their customers as possible with new policies that are almost certain to be more comprehensive than their old ones.

Indeed, in all the furor, people forget how terrible many of the soon-to-be-abandoned policies were. Some had deductibles as high as $10,000 or $25,000 and required large co-pays after that, and some didn’t cover hospital care.

This overblown controversy has also obscured the crux of what health care reform is trying to do, which is to guarantee that everyone can buy insurance without being turned away or charged exorbitant rates for pre-existing conditions and that everyone can receive benefits that really protect them against financial or medical disaster, not illusory benefits that prove inadequate when a crisis strikes.

Got that, rubes?  It’s Republicans who have “stoked confusion” over a law that the President merely “misspoke” about when he told the American people they wouldn’t – couldn’t – be kicked off their existing plans once Obamacare fully took effect. To the slobbering lapdogs at the NYT editorial board who have rolled over for Obama from day one, this can be sweetly and conveniently spun as “misspeaking”, but to the millions of citizens of this country receiving letters in the mail that their coverage has been cancelled, alerting them that they’ll need to pony up a lot more cash (that they don’t have) in order to afford something comparable for them and/or for their families, some who are right in the middle of a healthcare issue who are now extremely concerned that they may not be able to keep their primary care physician – another “misspeak” by Obama –  this is called exactly what it is: A BALD-FACED LIE.

But worry not, dolts, this is for your own good- and for the good of ALL OF MANKIND:

Starting next year, all plans sold in this country will be required to provide 10 essential benefits, including some, like mental health and substance abuse treatment and maternity and newborn care, that are not now part of many policies. And premiums may well rise, in part because insurance companies must accept all applicants, not just the healthy.

Premiums are apt to come down for older patients and sicker patients with chronic illnesses. Premiums will likely go up for younger, healthier patients. Even so, analysts at the Kaiser Family Foundation believe that most people will actually pay less next year, because those with modest incomes will qualify for federal subsidies and many poor, uninsured people will be eligible for Medicaid.

As I wrote Friday in response to TPM’s absurd piece essentially stating the same thing:

Got it? Even if that 3% number [of people ‘actually’ impacted]  is correct (and I’d bet $100 it’s not), those people don’t matter, are insignificant in the scheme of things. After all, sacrifices have to be made for the “common good”, right?  Just like those people who have lost jobs, or have seen their hours reduced, their full time status reduced to part time, and/or pay cut as a result of companies having to make cost adjustments due to the regulations under Obamacare.  They don’t count. As to the rest, well, there will be a  ”net benefit” to Obamacare, you see, because even though they are losing their current plan thanks to Democrats who voted against a GOP resolution in 2010 that would have prevented that from happening, they’ll have “better” options under a “new” plan … except the dum dums at TPM and other liberal outlets parroting this tripe don’t get that for many, comparable plans are too expensive for them and they will  NOT qualify for a subsidy.

… and nor would they qualify for Medicaid. But again, these people don’t matter, right?

Surprisingly enough, though the reliably left wing parrots at the NYT predictably take Obama’s side on this issue, the equally and usually reliable Obama supporters and proponents of Obamacare at the Charlotte Observer do not.  Observer associate editor Peter St. Onge wrote at the paper yesterday:

It’s becoming harder to believe [a lie] didn’t happen with this president and his health care law. We all know the quote by now. In 2009, as the Affordable Care Act was being written, Obama told the American Medical Association: “If you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan, period.” A year later, he reiterated: “If you like your insurance plan, you will keep it. No one will be able to take that away from you.”

But that wasn’t true. And he knew it. So did a handful of Republicans and journalists who said then that the president couldn’t possibly keep his promise. The Affordable Care Act did allow for some insurance plans to be grandfathered, but the law also required that medical coverage be more robust than the plans many people held. Cancellations were inevitable. Millions of them.

But Obama didn’t equivocate. He didn’t say, “Well, I’m not talking about all Americans…”

“Period,” he said.

Now the inevitable has arrived. Americans with individual insurance policies are getting cancellations in the mail. The media are widely reporting what too few did four years ago. Republicans are pouncing with Joe Wilson-like fury.

And now, the president and his supporters are trying to deflect the hard truth with soft logic:

“Those Americans had substandard plans…”

Doesn’t matter.

“Most will be able to get subsidies for their new, improved plans…”

Also doesn’t matter.

“The cancellations affect only a small number of people…”

Maybe so (or maybe not, according to some estimates). But that doesn’t absolve the deception.

[…]

Obama, not surprisingly, doubled down last week, blaming the media for “misleading” people by not reporting on the better deal many Americans are getting. Did you expect, “Sorry about that, but I had to fib”?

That’s the calculation the president faced four years ago when deciding what we should know. Should he jeopardize a worthy law – which it is, by the way – by acknowledging its shortcomings up front? Or should he risk a political hit after Obamacare is the law of the land?

But in choosing the latter, he forgot a more basic truth: It should have been our decision, not his.

Welcome to the club, Charlotte Observer.   This doesn’t absolve you from your years of covering for Dear Leader on Obamacare, your years of accusing Republicans and conservatives of “racism” and opposing the President for the sake of opposing him, but we’ll take your veiled mea culpa here – and remind you of it often.

Naked Fascism: The real story behind the liberal “defenses” of #Obamacare

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly
Useful idiot.

Words of wisdom.

Since I wrote my piece detailing how “progressive activist” and Obama tool Sally Kohn lectured millions of Americans who have lost their health insurance plans as a result of Obamacare that it was a “good thing” that was happening, I’ve noticed a similar theme/excuse-making from other liberals on the same issue.   As a refresher, here’s a snippet from Kohn’s piece (bolded emphasis added by me):

(CNN) – Conservatives are expressing shock and outrage that the Obama administration knew that many people in the individual insurance market would not be able to keep their plans once the Affordable Care Act took effect. Such shock is not surprising; overblown outrage is the stock and trade of conservative politics these days.

But here’s what conservatives won’t tell you, lest it undermine their theatrics: Many insurance plans are shutting down because they don’t meet the higher bar of quality benefits required under Obamacare, and of those people who lose access to their plans, many will pay less and all will have better and more comprehensive options.

Also, with a few exceptions, no one is really noting that this point isn’t quite news. In 2010, the fact that certain insurance plans would not be grandfathered into Obamacare because of their inadequate coverage was widely covered by the press. It was a given, after all that, if standards for health insurance were going to be raised in America — a good thing — then some plans that don’t meet the bar would no longer be available. One could blame this on the Affordable Care Act, or alternatively, one could blame this on insurance companies for providing such substandard care in the first place.

Here’s what this boils down to:

Will some people lose their current insurance? Yes.

Will these same folks lose health insurance coverage? No.

They will all have access to better plans and in many cases pay less because of expanded options and tax credits.

Kohn is basically saying, “Yeah, so you’re losing your insurance plan (that you may have liked) but the new one will be a ‘better’ (even if more expensive and out of your price range) because that’s how President Obama wanted it to be. So just deal with it, stupid, and you might see the benefits of it eventually.”  She’s not the only one.  Dylan Scott at Talking Points Memo wrote this ode to fascism today:

What Really Happens To People Whose Insurance Is ‘Canceled’ Because Of Obamacare

[…]

What really matters is what happens to the people who are receiving those cancelation letters that congressional Republicans have been parading in front of the cameras?

The bottom line: Almost all of them are going to receive the same or much better coverage, and many of them are going to receive financial help to purchase it.

First, let’s put the issue in perspective. As Jonathan Gruber, the MIT professor who oversaw Massachusetts health reform and is therefore as close as we have to a true veteran of a dramatic insurance overhaul, told the New Yorker, it’s only a small percentage (3 percent, to be precise) of Americans who you can really argue might at least potentially get screwed.

About 80 percent of people, those who receive insurance through their employer or are already enrolled in a government program, won’t experience any change at all, Gruber said. (The Kaiser Family Foundation puts the number at 79 percent).

Another 14 percent are currently uninsured people who will now be able to get covered because of the Affordable Care Act, Gruber said. (Kaiser pegs it at 16 percent uninsured). How many of those actually get covered depends on a few variables — like whether Republicans states come around and expand Medicaid — but that’s the share that stands to gain.

So then you have 6 percent who might receive a cancelation [sp] letter (Kaiser says the individual market is 5 percent). Of those, Gruber argued, about half aren’t really going to see a change: They’ll technically enroll in a new plan, but it’ll be very similar to what they already had.

That leaves 3 percent who will have to buy significantly different plans, some of whom might have to pay more for them (at least before the law’s tax credits and other financial assistance kick in).

[…]

To be clear, nobody has done an analysis yet of what people who have received a cancelation notice are going to pay for coverage under the ACA. There’s just no way to do that. But we can take a pretty educated guess by looking at the breakdown of the health insurance market provided by the Kaiser Family Foundation.

People making less than 400 percent of the federal poverty level qualify for either tax credits or expanded Medicaid (which, to be clear, has to cover the same set of 10 benefits that private plans have to cover). According to Kaiser, about 60 percent people in the individual insurance market (more than 10 million) have an income within that range, which leaves the other 40 percent (about 4.4 million) who don’t and won’t qualify for help.

So mash this all up — it’s an imperfect science — and Gruber’s prediction that about 3 percent of Americans are actually at risk of ‘losing’ under Obamacare holds up pretty well.

“We have to as a society be able to accept that,” he told the New Yorker. “Don’t get me wrong, that’s a shame, but no law in the history of America makes everyone better off.”

Got it? Even if that 3% number is correct (and I’d bet $100 it’s not), those people don’t matter, are insignificant in the scheme of things. After all, sacrifices have to be made for the “common good”, right?  Just like those people who have lost jobs, or have seen their hours reduced, their full time status reduced to part time, and/or pay cut as a result of companies having to make cost adjustments due to the regulations under Obamacare.  They don’t count. As to the rest, well, there will be a  “net benefit” to Obamacare, you see, because even though they are losing their current plan thanks to Democrats who voted against a GOP resolution in 2010 that would have prevented that from happening, they’ll have “better” options under a “new” plan … except the dum dums at TPM and other liberal outlets parroting this tripe don’t get that for many, comparable plans are too expensive for them and they will  NOT qualify for a subsidy.

The “defenses” from liberals over the fresh media reports about how many people are losing their current insurance coverage over Obamacare  are getting more pathetic by the minute,  including another emerging tactic: trying to “debunk” Obamacare horror stories:

Since insurers have begun informing beneficiaries that their health care plans do not meet the new federal requirements of Obamacare, and will be either cancelled or significantly altered, the media has profiled countless middle class Americans who claim that the new health care law will force them to pay more for coverage.

Deborah Cavallaro, for instance, a real estate agent from Los Angeles, was enrolled in an individual plan that cost her just $293 per month. Under Obamacare, Cavallaro says she’ll have to pay over $400 for coverage she doesn’t need or want. But a higher premium doesn’t tell the whole story: while Cavallaro may spend more each month, she’ll be buying more comprehensive insurance with fewer out-of-pocket costs, better benefits that will cover more and cost her less if she actually falls ill, and much more robust consumer protections.

Assuming all of the above written by Think Progress is true (it probably isn’t), just shut up, Ms. Cavallaro, and accept that this “change” in your insurance policy “is for your own good.” Umkay?

Merriam-Webster defines fascism in the following fashion:

: a way of organizing a society in which a government ruled by a dictator controls the lives of the people and in which people are not allowed to disagree with the government

[…]

1: often capitalized :  a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2:  a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control <early instances of army fascism and brutality — J. W. Aldridge>

Some liberals try to distance themselves from the word fascist by falsely asserting that fascism is primarily a “right wing” thing.  Clueless wonders. As a Twitter friend notes:

 

 

 

Explaining fascism to people who don’t follow politics much is sometimes tricky and difficult. In the case of Obamacare, the arguments against centralized government making your decisions for you pretty much write themselves. End of story. It’s time for people to wake-up. Today.

Obama tool @SallyKohn: Losing your current health insurance plan is a good thing, rube

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly
Useful idiot.

Words of wisdom.

There are Useful Idiots, fools, and then there are absolute tools -and “progressive activist” Sally Kohn manages to roll all three into one with this apologetic, lecture-y piece on Obamacare:

(CNN) — Conservatives are expressing shock and outrage that the Obama administration knew that many people in the individual insurance market would not be able to keep their plans once the Affordable Care Act took effect. Such shock is not surprising; overblown outrage is the stock and trade of conservative politics these days.

But here’s what conservatives won’t tell you, lest it undermine their theatrics: Many insurance plans are shutting down because they don’t meet the higher bar of quality benefits required under Obamacare, and of those people who lose access to their plans, many will pay less and all will have better and more comprehensive options.

Also, with a few exceptions, no one is really noting that this point isn’t quite news. In 2010, the fact that certain insurance plans would not be grandfathered into Obamacare because of their inadequate coverage was widely covered by the press. It was a given, after all that, if standards for health insurance were going to be raised in America — a good thing — then some plans that don’t meet the bar would no longer be available. One could blame this on the Affordable Care Act, or alternatively, one could blame this on insurance companies for providing such substandard care in the first place.

Here’s what this boils down to:

Will some people lose their current insurance? Yes.

Will these same folks lose health insurance coverage? No.

They will all have access to better plans and in many cases pay less because of expanded options and tax credits.

And many will have a LESSER plan and WON’T be able to afford anywhere close to the plan similar to the one they LIKED because they don’t qualify for those “expanded options” and “tax credits”, Ms. Kohn. What happened to FREEDOM OF CHOICE? What if someone LIKED their plan and wanted to STAY on their current plan – which suited THEIR needs just fine?   What if you’re in the middle of a  healthcare issue right now, pregnant, or maybe going through cancer treatments, and end up having to switch off to another plan midstream and can’t keep the doctor/care team you liked?

None of this matters to Ms. Kohn, and other Obama apologists like her, who are – in a nutshell – saying “who cares that MILLIONS will be dropped from the plans they’re on, and who gives a RIP that Team Obama KNEW this early on (as did the mainstream media) and still flatly and falsely asserted otherwise anyway?  Barry O and his crew on Pennsylvania Avenue have declared that this is a better option for you, so just deal with it and shut up, ya rube!”

Welcome to modern day “liberalism”, folks, where thinking for yourself is secondary to being ‘patriotic’ enough to eagerly want to pay higher taxes, fork out more money for a healthcare plan you don’t like, and pledge blind allegiance to Uncle Sam – as long as he (or she) happens to be a far left Democrat.

#HarryReidsShutdown starts as Dem Senate refuses to compromise w/ GOP House

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly
Government shutdown

Predictable.

Via The Hill:

Congress missed a midnight deadline to avert a shutdown of the federal government, as the Republican-led House and the Democratic-led Senate battled through the night on legislation to keep the lights on.

National parks and museums were set to shutter Tuesday morning, and hundreds of thousands of federal employees will stay home on furlough with no financing in place at the start of a new fiscal year.

Just before midnight, President Obama’s budget director Sylvia Matthews Burwell issued guidance to agencies directing them to execute their plans for an orderly shutdown of the government.

 

“Unfortunately, we do not have a clear indication that Congress will act in time for the president to sign a continuing resolution before the end of the day tomorrow, October 1, 2013,” the memo said. “Therefore, agencies should now execute plans for an orderly shutdown due to the absence of appropriations.”

Less than two hours before the deadline, House GOP leaders moved to set up a House-Senate conference committee, acknowledging that the two chambers had been unable to resolve their differences.

Debate on the motion had not ended when the clock struck midnight, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said Democrats would not agree to a formal conference until the House passed its continuing resolution.

“The Senate has continued to reject our offers, but under the Constitution there’s a way to resolve this process, and that’s to go to conference and talk through your differences,” he continued, “and I would hope that the Senate would accept our offer to go to conference and discuss this so that we can resolve this for the American people.”

The House approved the conference committee at about 1:30 a.m. and in a brief appearance before reporters after the final House vote, Boehner made no reference to the government shutdown.

“The House has made its position known very clearly,” he said. “We believe that we should fund the government and we think there ought to be basic fairness for all Americans under ObamaCare.

Earlier on Monday, last-minute efforts to resolve the stalemate failed, as the Senate rejected multiple attempts by House Republicans to dismantle President Obama’s signature healthcare law as a condition of funding the government.

Why did this shutdown happen? Because jerks like Harry Reid would rather play political games than to offer up a compromise from the Senate end that would keep the government open. Republicans have made multiple offers to avoid a shutdown (and unlike the Senate,  has actually passed a budget), but the dum dums in the majority party in the Senate won’t have any part of it.   The media won’t hold him accountable, but this shutdown is all on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.  He wanted it. President Obama wanted it, because they both believe ultimately the American people will blame the GOP for the shutdown come the 2014 elections. Polls are mixed on the issue.

Regardless, Republicans need to press the point home about Reid and the Democrats in the Senate in every single interview, public appearance, and comment they make, even after the shutdown is over.   Senate Democrats need to own this, including the red state Democrats vulnerable in 2014 (like NC’s US Senator Kay Hagan) who decided to side with Reid in the battle over the CR rather than avoid a shutdown.

Memeorandum has more.

Unhinged #NCpol Dems: What liberal NC professors think of opposing viewpoints

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly
Liberal academic bias

Very real. Extremely disturbing.
(Image via the Washington Times)

College Fix’s Ben Smith files this report on the recent “Scholars’ for North Carolina’s Future” gathering held at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Prepare for much New Tone:

CHAPEL HILL – Abortion safety laws make it “more dangerous for the black woman’s body.” Republican lawmakers “want kids to die.” Conservatives “are trying to take the U.S. hostage” and hope to “destroy our public school system.”

That’s just a sample of some of the vitriol spewed Thursday night at the University of North Carolina – Chapel Hill, which played host to a meeting of Scholars’ for North Carolina’s Future, a group of secular-progressive college professors who have helped lead, along with the NAACP and AFL-CIO, weekly “Moral Monday” protests at the state capitol over the last several months.

The Moral Monday movement is a massive and disruptive weekly civil disobedience demonstration, and it has become somewhat of a spectacle in North Carolina, with liberal activists using it as a platform to rally against the Republican-held majority in the General Assembly and its approval of issues such as voter-ID laws and fiscal responsibility on public education.

The panel was billed around campus as a chance to learn what Moral Mondays are really all about, and see how they “fit in with past social movements.” Before the panel at the Global Education Center at UNC Chapel Hill began, many in the audience of about 165 people discussed their experiences during protests at the Raleigh statehouse.

Several openly bragged about their arrests, fights with cops, and the help with legal entanglements they’ve received from the NAACP. More than 900 arrests have occurred since the protests launched in April. As the audience – a mostly white, elderly group – waited for the meeting to begin, they also talked with impassioned contempt about conservatives. About a dozen students attended the event, which was heavily publicized in the Gender Studies and Journalism departments.

The lack of minorities in the audience, less than 10, was astonishing for a group so entwined with the Rev. Dr. William Barber, president of the North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP. Jesse White, former director of UNC’s Office of Economic and Business Development and an adjunct government professor, began the meeting by asking those who had attended a Moral Monday to stand. Almost 75 percent of the crowd stood.

He then asked all to be seated except those who have been arrested at a Moral Monday. About a dozen remained standing, none of them students. As he continued, he called the movement “inspiring” and Republican state legislators regressive.

Remember when going to college was supposed to expose you to all kinds of differing viewpoints?  It’s been so long …

Anyway, make sure to read the whole thing, and if you’re a parent who is paying or who will be paying for your daughter and/or son to attend UNC-CH, Duke, or any of the other universities mentioned in the piece, question what you’re money will be paying for.  The intolerance level is set to “HIGH” for many of the professors at these “institutions of higher learning”, and while I know many conservatives who have gotten a great education at UNC-CH, Duke, and other colleges in this state, I know of far more with the mindset of the “professors.”

Related to all this, Michelle Malkin’s Twitter aggregation site Twitchy.com documented a rant I posted earlier this week about prominent NC left wing activists based in the Raleigh area who have been after me and other loudmouthed NC conservative women for months in attempts to “out” our identities. Why? Because we dared to invade their social media frat party.  You can read the back story on this here and here.   Also,  please make sure to read Robert Stacy McCain’s post on this, titled “When ‘Shutuppery’ Fails“.

BTW, this is a group of mostly liberal women who have been engaged at this. Talk about War On Women … by women! ;)

Flashback – 8/1/12:

Colorado gun rights advocates score big win in #COrecall election

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly

Via Political Wire:

“An epic national debate over gun rights in Colorado on Tuesday saw two Democratic state senators ousted for their support for stricter laws, a ‘ready, aim, fired’ message intended to stop other politicians for pushing for firearms restrictions,” the Denver Post reports.

[…]

Joshua Spivak: “There’s no question that Gun Rights groups scored a big win here. I mentioned that this is a symbolic recall — the gun control law was not getting overturned and the Democrats would not lose control of the Senate. However, as a symbol, this is a big one. It may once again scare off legislators from moderate to conservative districts in the rest of the country from supporting gun control legislation. If the goal was to revisit 1994, then it is very possible that they succeeded.”

More from that Denver Post article:

The turn of events made Morse and Giron the first Colorado state lawmakers to be recalled. Former Colorado Springs councilman Bernie Herpin will take Morse’s seat in the Senate, while Pueblo will be represented by former Deputy Police Chief George Rivera.

It’s unclear when the city of Pueblo was last represented in the Senate by a Republican.

“Coloradans … sent a clear message that politicians who blatantly ignore their constituents will be held accountable,” said Dustin Zvonek, state director of Americans for Prosperity. “Perhaps this will serve as a lesson that one-party rule in Denver doesn’t give the majority license to take things to extremes or run roughshod over the values and rights of Coloradans who just happen, for the moment, to be in the minority.”

[…]

But it wasn’t just the NRA that warned Democrats about messing with gun rights.

Sen. Lois Tochtrop, an Adams County Democrat and longtime Second Amendment activist, opposed five of the seven gun bills initially introduced in the session, including a lightning-rod proposal by Morse.

That proposal would have assigned liability for assault-style weapon damages to manufacturers and sellers, but Morse killed it at the 11th-hour because he didn’t have the votes to pass it through the Democratic-controlled Senate.

“I feel like all these gun bills have done — to quote the last words in the movie ‘Tora! Tora! Tora!’ — is to awaken a sleeping giant,” Tochtrop said during the debate.

Awaken they did.

Well done, Colorado second amendment proponents. Well done.

Colorado recall

‘Stand up for your rights!’ someone, somewhere shouted.
And so Coloradans did.
(Photo via CBS)

When @WendyDavisTexas raises a nice chunk of change, what is she REALLY doing?

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly

The Dallas Morning News reports in depth on fundraising numbers for new “feminist” media/liberal darling – TX state Senator Wendy Davis (hat tip):

In the six weeks following her headline-grabbing filibuster, Wendy Davis raised $1.2 million — nearly 40 percent of it from outside Texas. Davis drew national attention following the filibuster against an abortion-restriction bill that helped shut down the Texas Senate and prompted Gov. Rick Perry to call lawmakers back into another special session. In the wake of Davis’ new-found fame, Davis has been urged by some Democrats to run for governor next year. She says she will announce her political plans — whether to run for reelection as a senator from Fort Worth or as a Democrat for governor — in a few weeks.

Her latest finance report shows that between the June 25 filibuster through July, Davis raised $793,800 from Texas and nearly $470,000 from donors outside Texas. Her biggest donor states were California ($103,694), New York ($68,764) and the Washington DC area ($59,000).

No surprise there considering the liberal bent of CA, NY, and DC, but when you think about it, what is Ms. Davis really doing when she puts on her high heels and fashionable outfits to raise money for whatever her eventual future campaign will be (whether it’s re-election to the state Senate or Governor) ? She’s whipping up the masses into a frenzy and convincing them to donate to her campaign all the while walking all over the backs of past, present, and future aborted babies.  As a friend on Facebook put it:

That’s a powerful metaphor, ST. Wendy in her fashionable Louboutins trampling all those broken little bodies.

Yes. Remember that the next time you see Ms. Davis on MSNBC or some other similar left wing network / program being fawned over by whoever she is being interviewed by at the time.  Remember that when you read stories from the mediots about how “amazing” her fundraising talents are, how “bright” her future is.  All of it, every single bit of it, is because she “stood up” against people who wanted to protect unborn babies at the 20 week mark and beyond from being mutilated by the inhumane abortion procedure that would pull their little body parts out bit by bloody piece.  Sen. Davis stood up for the “right” for a women to kill their unborn babies for any reason – not just talking about life of the mother reasons here, which would be understandable, but for ANY reason.  How much “guts” does it take to stand up for a woman’s “right” to kill her unborn child when you know what glowing national press you will receive? It’s stark, and difficult to contemplate, but it must be said.

Wendy Davis essentially tap dances on the dead bodies and graves of the millions of aborted babies who will never get the chance that she was blessed with to find their way in the world, and people should never forget that, no matter how sharp her fashion style is.

Wendy Davis

No amount of make-up, high fashion, and glamour will change the horror of what this woman advocates. Never forget. (Photo courtesy of Vogue)

Socialist French government finds there really is such a thing as being “overtaxed”

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly

Via the UK Telegraph comes a report that France’s Socialist government, famous for burdening their “rich” with extraordinarily high taxs, have come to the conclusion that they can’t tax their people (the rich and middle class) anymore without bleeding them dry (via Memeorandum) :

France’s Socialist government has admitted that the country cannot cope with any further tax rises and promised no more hikes just days ahead of the country’s largest ever tax bill.

In an unfortunate piece of timing, however, the pledge came just as the environment minister announced the creation of a new “carbon tax” and amid reports that the overall tax pressure on French households will rise even further next year.

Returning from their summer break, the French are about to discover stinging rises in tax bills in their letter boxes – the result of a series of new levies enacted by President François Hollande as he seeks to plug the French deficit and bring down public debt – now riding at 92 per cent of GDP.

But the extent of the hikes has apparently even shocked the very Socialist ministers who implemented them.

The total tax pressure (taxes and social security contributions) will account for 46.3 per cent of GDP this year – a historic high – compared to 45 per cent in 2012.

Some 16 million households will see an automatic 2 per cent rise in income tax as calculations are no longer mitigated by inflation. Family tax breaks will be cut.

The rich will see the highest rises, following Mr Hollande’s decision to raise the rate to 45 per cent for those earning more than 150,000 euros – effectively 49 per cent due to an additional levy.

Amid discontent at the forthcoming rises, Jean-François Copé, head of the opposition Right-wing UMP party today pledged to enact “massive tax cuts” and to slash state spending by ten per cent should his party win power in 2017.

In a clear damage limitation exercise, a chorus of top Socialists spoke out against any more rises.

Pierre Mosovici, the finance minister, told France Inter radio: “I’m very sensitive to the French getting fed up with taxes We are listening to them.” Laurent Fabius, the foreign minister followed suit, warning Mr Hollande to be “very, very careful” as “there’s a level above which we shouldn’t climb”.

One Socialist told Les Echos newspaper that the hand-wringing was totally hypocritical as “they are crying wolf, but the wolf is us.”

The topic was top of the agenda at the Socialists’ annual “summer university”, which opened today , and where Ségolène Royal, Mr Hollande’s former partner, called for a “moratorium on new taxes.” Even more categorical was Bruno Le Roux, Socialist leader in the National Assembly, who declared: “There will be no new taxes” for the rest of Mr Hollande’s five-year mandate.

I’d like to think Socialists somewhere (in this case, France) have finally had their wake up call on how high taxes stifle growth by cutting off job creators and potential workers at the knees, but we know they haven’t.   As PJ Tatler’s Rick Moran notes:

Jeez, what a bunch of hypocrites. They stick it to the people least able to absorb a tax hike without a decline in their standard of living, and then declare a de facto moratorium on tax hikes — at least until they think they can get away with more tax increases politically.

The net result of the tax increases will be slower growth, which, considering all the new spending that Hollande has proposed probably means the deficit will go up, rather than shrink. The French president was one of the biggest boosters in Europe of getting rid of “austerity” budgets, so now we’ll see just how “Hollandonomics” plays out in the real economy.

Sound familiar?

Overtaxed

Will the American left soon come to the same conclusions when it comes to overtaxing? Don’t count on it!