VIEW MY LATEST SLIDE SHOW

VIEW THE OBAMA COLLECTION

VIEW MY HILLARY COLLECTION

VIEW MY DEMOCRATIC PARTY COLLECTION





Archive for the ‘Tax and Spend Democrats’ Category

Maxine Waters: Socialize the Oil Companies

Tuesday, May 27th, 2008

This from Stop The ACLU


gas.jpg
Glenn Beck: Government isn’t the solution, its the problem. 

Guess what this liberal will be all about? Socializing!


Link: sevenload.com

Kim Preistap breaks it down:

Now, if the US government and the Democrats like Ms. Waters were truly interested in erasing the oil companies’ record profits and helping the American consumers, then they would be doing everything they could to increase oil and gasoline production so as to saturate the market. The price of oil and gasoline would then drop through the floor. Remember when oil was $8 a barrel and gasoline was a mere $.95? Oil companies were merging left and right because they couldn’t stay in business on their own and the price of gas wasn’t on the American people’s radar. If punishing the oil companies is truly what Democrats like Maxine Waters really want to do, then they would glut the market. They would change the law so that the supply of oil and gasoline vastly outpaced demand and oil and gas prices dropped.

But they won’t do that because they don’t care about the American consumers. They don’t want the American people using more oil or gasoline. They want the American people to hurt at the pump so they don’t drive as much. Why? Because Democrats actually think the America people are the problem in all of this to begin with.

The oil executive’s answer?: We’ve heard this before, its called Hugo Chavez. This is a hero of the left. Note to Congress: Read Atlass Shrugged.

Also read the Astute Blogger’s post on the slipping mask of the Democrats.

Sphere: Related Content

Obama, Terrorists, Oil, Stupid, America Screwed

Thursday, May 15th, 2008

Work with me people I’m gonna weave a couple of topics and posts into one confusing one, LOL!

From Hot Air

The latest ad from the RNC takes some low-hanging fruit and makes a feast from it. The ad takes the energy policy of Barack Obama and compares it to the last President that tried it — Jimmy Carter. Obama’s call for a windfall-profits tax against oil companies prompts a history lesson about the results from the last such attempt:

RNC Commercial

MORE HERE

MORE READINGPDF - RNC Research Briefing: Why Does Barack Obama Want To Increase Taxes Again And
Drive Up The Cost Of Gasoline On Americans?

BUT NOW WATCH THIS CLIP OF OBAMA….

TEXT: Sen. Barack Obama The Age of oil must end speech

“your great mayor” LOL!

“We fuel our oil addiction by sending over 800 million dollars a day to countries that include some of the most despotic volatile regimes in the world.”

“oil money funds everything from the madrassas that plant the seeds of terror in young minds, to sunni insurgents that attack our troops in Iraq, corrupts budding democracies
and gives dictators from Venezuela to Iran the power to freely defy the international community it even presents a larger target for Osama Bin Laden who has told Al Qaeda to focus your operations on oil especially in Iraq and the gulf area since this will cause Americans to die off on their own”

The clip

Now Bush says this:

“Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along,”

said Bush, in what White House aides privately acknowledged was a reference to calls by Obama and other Democrats for the U.S. president to sit down for talks with leaders like Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Because Obama said this….

Obama: “Sure, I’ll meet with Castro, Chavez, Ahmadinejad, etc”

And as Allahpundit noted, from Obama’s own website:

obama-website.jpg

Without preconditions. That means without Iran guaranteeing anything, let alone the big prize of their nuclear program.

MORE OF THIS HERE AT HOT AIR AGAIN

Now I’m confused and I’m the one posting this shit, Obama says to me (Snoop evil dictator) you run one of the most despotic regimes in the world and I plant the seeds of terror in young minds, and you STILL want to sit down and talk to me? What the fuck?
Which is it? Negotiate with terrorist thugs, stop sending these thugs our money via oil, reduce dependency on foreign oil, we need a windfall profits tax to tax the oil companies, oh don’t forget that we have no other alternative energy resources, bla bla bla, yada yada yada.

CONFUSED!?!

Yes I must agree with El Borak, an Obama presidency will no doubt be a fun one blogging wise. Just think the Democrats will fucken have control of the House, Senate and likely the presidency (even if McCain wins the same thing). The Democrats are likely to turn this country back into the Stone Age. And who do we have to blame, Republicans since they are a bunch of spineless no guts assholes that refuse to run on and stand up for conservative principles.

With the Democrats in charge America will in essence be imprisoned by liberalism and thus will become the “tossed salad man”

Sphere: Related Content

Look for Obama to plagiarize this old Jimmy Carter energy speech

Tuesday, May 13th, 2008

Primary Sources: The “Crisis of Confidence” Speech July 15, 1979

obamasmilegif.gif

Carter: What I have to say to you now about energy is simple and vitally important.Point one: I am tonight setting a clear goal for the energy policy of the United States. Beginning this moment, this nation will never use more foreign oil than we did in 1977 — never. From now on, every new addition to our demand for energy will be met from our own production and our own conservation. The generation-long growth in our dependence on foreign oil will be stopped dead in its tracks right now and then reversed as we move through the 1980s, for I am tonight setting the further goal of cutting our dependence on foreign oil by one-half by the end of the next decade — a saving of over 4-1/2 million barrels of imported oil per day.

Point two: To ensure that we meet these targets, I will use my presidential authority to set import quotas. I’m announcing tonight that for 1979 and 1980, I will forbid the entry into this country of one drop of foreign oil more than these goals allow. These quotas will ensure a reduction in imports even below the ambitious levels we set at the recent Tokyo summit.

Point three: To give us energy security, I am asking for the most massive peacetime commitment of funds and resources in our nation’s history to develop America’s own alternative sources of fuel — from coal, from oil shale, from plant products for gasohol, from unconventional gas, from the sun.

I propose the creation of an energy security corporation to lead this effort to replace 2-1/2 million barrels of imported oil per day by 1990. The corporation I will issue up to $5 billion in energy bonds, and I especially want them to be in small denominations so that average Americans can invest directly in America’s energy security.

Just as a similar synthetic rubber corporation helped us win World War II, so will we mobilize American determination and ability to win the energy war. Moreover, I will soon submit legislation to Congress calling for the creation of this nation’s first solar bank, which will help us achieve the crucial goal of 20 percent of our energy coming from solar power by the year 2000.

These efforts will cost money, a lot of money, and that is why Congress must enact the windfall profits tax without delay. It will be money well spent. Unlike the billions of dollars that we ship to foreign countries to pay for foreign oil, these funds will be paid by Americans to Americans. These funds will go to fight, not to increase, inflation and unemployment.

Point four: I’m asking Congress to mandate, to require as a matter of law, that our nation’s utility companies cut their massive use of oil by 50 percent within the next decade and switch to other fuels, especially coal, our most abundant energy source.

Point five: To make absolutely certain that nothing stands in the way of achieving these goals, I will urge Congress to create an energy mobilization board which, like the War Production Board in World War II, will have the responsibility and authority to cut through the red tape, the delays, and the endless roadblocks to completing key energy projects.

We will protect our environment. But when this nation critically needs a refinery or a pipeline, we will build it.

Point six: I’m proposing a bold conservation program to involve every state, county, and city and every average American in our energy battle. This effort will permit you to build conservation into your homes and your lives at a cost you can afford.

I ask Congress to give me authority for mandatory conservation and for standby gasoline rationing. To further conserve energy, I’m proposing tonight an extra $10 billion over the next decade to strengthen our public transportation systems. And I’m asking you for your good and for your nation’s security to take no unnecessary trips, to use carpools or public transportation whenever you can, to park your car one extra day per week, to obey the speed limit, and to set your thermostats to save fuel. Every act of energy conservation like this is more than just common sense — I tell you it is an act of patriotism.

Our nation must be fair to the poorest among us, so we will increase aid to needy Americans to cope with rising energy prices. We often think of conservation only in terms of sacrifice. In fact, it is the most painless and immediate way of rebuilding our nation’s strength. Every gallon of oil each one of us saves is a new form of production. It gives us more freedom, more confidence, that much more control over our own lives.

So, the solution of our energy crisis can also help us to conquer the crisis of the spirit in our country. It can rekindle our sense of unity, our confidence in the future, and give our nation and all of us individually a new sense of purpose.

You know we can do it. We have the natural resources. We have more oil in our shale alone than several Saudi Arabias. We have more coal than any nation on Earth. We have the world’s highest level of technology. We have the most skilled work force, with innovative genius, and I firmly believe that we have the national will to win this war.

I do not promise you that this struggle for freedom will be easy. I do not promise a quick way out of our nation’s problems, when the truth is that the only way out is an all-out effort. What I do promise you is that I will lead our fight, and I will enforce fairness in our struggle, and I will ensure honesty. And above all, I will act. We can manage the short-term shortages more effectively and we will, but there are no short-term solutions to our long-range problems. There is simply no way to avoid sacrifice.

Twelve hours from now I will speak again in Kansas City, to expand and to explain further our energy program. Just as the search for solutions to our energy shortages has now led us to a new awareness of our Nation’s deeper problems, so our willingness to work for those solutions in energy can strengthen us to attack those deeper problems.

I will continue to travel this country, to hear the people of America. You can help me to develop a national agenda for the 1980s. I will listen and I will act. We will act together. These were the promises I made three years ago, and I intend to keep them.

Little by little we can and we must rebuild our confidence. We can spend until we empty our treasuries, and we may summon all the wonders of science. But we can succeed only if we tap our greatest resources — America’s people, America’s values, and America’s confidence.

I have seen the strength of America in the inexhaustible resources of our people. In the days to come, let us renew that strength in the struggle for an energy secure nation.

In closing, let me say this: I will do my best, but I will not do it alone. Let your voice be heard. Whenever you have a chance, say something good about our country. With God’s help and for the sake of our nation, it is time for us to join hands in America. Let us commit ourselves together to a rebirth of the American spirit. Working together with our common faith we cannot fail.

FULL TEXT HERE

Sphere: Related Content

Chairman Hensarling Talks About Democrats’ Priorities

Friday, March 14th, 2008

Found this video via Red State
Nice contrast to the Obama earmark story below…

Sphere: Related Content

House Dems Pass Massive Tax Hike on Oil Companies……. to Bring Down Price of Fuel!

Thursday, February 28th, 2008

nozone.jpgThis latest move by the Pelosi-Reid Congress is not surprising.
Democrats have always been against oil drilling and exploration.
And, they have been wanting to increase taxes on oil companies since forever.
Their policies have caused our reliance on foreign oil to grow significantly.

For decades, the Democratic party has blocked one effort after another to responsibly develop the energy resources our country possesses, transforming vast areas of opportunity into “The No Zone.”

MUCH MORE HERE

Sphere: Related Content

Frisco’s Mayor to pay “climate aide” $160,000 a year!

Wednesday, February 20th, 2008


2007-10-17globalwarming.jpg

The brilliant scam continues. I have said often, global warming is not about “saving the planet” it’s about money, jobs, research dollars, growing gubment.


In his quest to make San Francisco the greenest city in the nation, Mayor Gavin Newsom recently created a $160,000-a-year job for a senior aide and gave him the ambitious-sounding title of director of climate protection initiatives.

One might expect someone with such an exalted handle to solve global warming and save the rain forest all in a day’s work.

But the new climate protection initiatives director is just the latest person to join the city payroll in the name of tackling global climate woes, raising questions about whether environmentalism is becoming the latest excuse for a bloating government payroll.

San Francisco has at least two dozen other city employees already working directly on climate issues at a cost to taxpayers of hundreds of thousands of dollars.

“Although it sounds very well intentioned, and perhaps even necessary, I’m concerned this is a case where eco-chic has gone out of control,” said Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi, the only Green Party member on the Board of Supervisors.

Newsom’s critics in City Hall have pounced on the amorphous “climate protection” title and have blasted the mayor for creating the new role - as well as for creating new jobs for other members of his senior circle and doling out hefty pay raises - while the city braces for a projected $233 million deficit next fiscal year and lawmakers contemplate reducing hospital operating room hours and delaying playground improvement projects to balance the budget.

READ THE REST

Sphere: Related Content

Obama — Ready To Use Your Money To Fight American Global Poverty

Monday, February 18th, 2008

I read this last week and forgot to post for y’all who might have missed. A look into an Obama administration.

shakedown.gif“Lowering the American standard of living will not solve world poverty. It will not increase America’s image and it will be quickly sucked into the coffers of every despot on the planet. The poor will remain poor and despots will be enriched. Anyone who doesn’t understand this is not worthy of government office. “

********

By Cliff Kincaid - From the website Conservative Truth 

A nice-sounding bill called the “Global Poverty Act,” sponsored by Democratic presidential candidate and Senator Barack Obama, is up for a Senate vote on Thursday and could result in the imposition of a global tax on the United States. The bill, which has the support of many liberal religious groups, makes levels of U.S. foreign aid spending subservient to the dictates of the United Nations.

Senator Joe Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has not endorsed either Senator Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton in the presidential race. But on Thursday, February 14, he is trying to rush Obama’s “Global Poverty Act” (S.2433) through his committee. The legislation would commit the U.S. to spending 0.7 percent of gross national product on foreign aid, which amounts to a phenomenal 13-year total of $845 billion over and above what the U.S. already spends.

The bill, which is item number four on the committee’s business meeting agenda,  passed the House by a voice vote last year because most members didn’t realize what was in it. Congressional sponsors have been careful not to calculate the amount of foreign aid spending that it would require. According to the website of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, no hearings have been held on the Obama bill in that body.

A release from the Obama Senate office about the bill declares, “In 2000, the U.S. joined more than 180 countries at the United Nations Millennium Summit and vowed to reduce global poverty by 2015. We are halfway towards this deadline, and it is time the United States makes it a priority of our foreign policy to meet this goal and help those who are struggling day to day.”

The legislation itself requires the President “to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the United States foreign policy objective of promoting the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day.”

The bill defines the term “Millennium Development Goals” as the goals set out in the United Nations Millennium Declaration, General Assembly Resolution 55/2 (2000).

The U.N. says that “The commitment to provide 0.7% of gross national product (GNP) as official development assistance was first made 35 years ago in a General Assembly resolution, but it has been reaffirmed repeatedly over the years, including at the 2002 global Financing for Development conference in Monterrey, Mexico. However, in 2004, total aid from the industrialized countries totaled just $78.6 billion—or about 0.25% of their collective GNP.”

READ THE REST

Sphere: Related Content

McCain Says: “No New Taxes” and the Republican Comedy Club goes wild!!!

Sunday, February 17th, 2008


(link) Republican John McCain says there will be no new taxes during his administration if he is elected president.

“No new taxes,” the likely GOP presidential nominee said during a taped interview broadcast Sunday.

McCain told ABC’s “This Week” that under no circumstances would he increase taxes, and added that he could “see an argument, if our economy continues to deteriorate, for lower interest rates, lower tax rates, and certainly decreasing corporate tax rates,” as well as giving people the ability to write off depreciation and eliminating the alternative minimum tax.

“READ MY LIPS”

Sphere: Related Content

Illegal immigrants may get rebates… of course they vote!! McCain….

Wednesday, January 30th, 2008


mccainforsale.jpg

In their bipartisan zeal to quickly cut a deal on an economic stimulus bill, GOP lawmakers overlooked something that will certainly inflame the conservative base _ illegal immigrants could receive a tax rebate check from the government.The text of the House passed bill contains language making “non resident aliens” _ illegal immigrants _ ineligible for the tax rebates. But every year, hundreds of thousands of undocumented immigrants use individual taxpayer identification numbers, known as ITINs, to file income tax returns with the IRS. These ID numbers are used instead of Social Security numbers. There are no exact statistics for how many illegal immigrants file tax returns, but this New York Times story from last year details the significant increase in use of ITINs.  This story also lays out the issue.

Immigration advocates point out that many legal immigrants use ITINs, so it would be impossible to outlaw rebates for everyone who uses this form of ID in tax returns.

Republicans who were involved in negotiating the bipartisan economic stimulus package would like to avoid the illegal immigration debate as the $146 billion bill comes to the Senate this week. Congressional aides say the problem is that the IRS is not a law enforcement agency, so it doesn’t check immigration status when people file tax returns.

“The reality is that those who filed a tax return will be eligible” for tax rebates of $600 to $1,200, said Sen. Ken Salazar (D-Colo.). “This [issue] has not been addressed” by the senators writing the bill.

The issue has certainly caught on in the conservative blogosphere, though, and you can bet a few conservative senators will bring this up as the stimulus bill hits the Senate floor. CNN’s Lou Dobbs will probably have a field day with the issue as well.

Read the rest here

IN CASE YOU HAD NOT HEARD…. Michelle Malkin reminds y’all


McCain’s open-borders supporters will declare that immigration is no longer a factor in this campaign. They so wish it to be so. (Right on cue, here’s Kennedy-fawning NYT columnist David Brooks dismissing immigration sniffily as “not a good issue for Republicans.”)But the fact is that McCain was driven to play up his border security promises (however hollow they may be) and to start talking up attrition through enforcement.

That’s a small victory. But questions like this remain: How can McCain honestly reach out to conservatives when he defends his extremist campaign Hispanic outreach director who doesn’t believe in borders and when he boasts a national campaign finance chair and soft-money mogul who poured millions of dollars into the fight against English-language instruction in California, Planned Parenthood, and radical environmental fear-mongering groups?

Sphere: Related Content

If you believe Romney is a conservative, can you please share what you are smoking!?

Wednesday, January 16th, 2008

I’m mainly posting this 411 on Mitt “flip flop panderman” Romney because during Rush these two horrible irritating women called in an just gushed like a couple of school girls about Romney and how he is this conservative and he stands for American values, bla, bla, bla bullshit. I’m like shut your fucken trap, you don’t know what the fuck you are talking about.
So Romney won Michigan bit fucken deal, who cares, I sure as hell don’t.

I’m already exceedingly pissed off because as the days roll on I am more convinced that one of these RINO, fake ass, ass kissing, sycophant, spineless, closet liberal flunky bastards is going to become the GOP nominee, mainly because I am convinced, as I have ranted about before that today’s typical Republican is ignorant, grossly uninformed and gullible. I’m like screw it, if you are going to get on these talks shows and bark about the “conservatism” of McCain, Romney, Huckabee and Giuliani you are either a volunteer for one of these people, a family member or you are willingly clueless, fucken pick one.

I must freely admit this campaign and what I am afraid of will be the eventual outcome is wearing thin with me. I am getting sick of reading and listening to these people.
Maybe that tis what the MSM and Democrats and fans of these RINO’s want. To destroy the collective will of individuals like me.

The fact that I am a moody and cranky bastard does not help and my meds are not even helping me cure my increasing angst and disgust with this campaign.
Despite having access to a worlds worth of information (thus the truth) on these candidates people don’t give a shit. Skanks swoon over Romney’s good looks and charm, others admire the hostage tales of McCain, and other Christian robots are easily sucked in by Huckabee’s Mayberry and backwoods preacher charm.
Also after listening to Rush yesterday and hearing Newt of all people apparently caving into liberal conspiracy theories and buying into Democrat political logic further illustrates how far in the tank the GOP has fallen, and frankly I believe its a hole the party is not likely to get itself out of anytime soon.


ABORTION

From the Left:

Romney ran against Senator Edward M. Kennedy in 1994. During a debate, Romney declared: “I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time that my mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a US Senate candidate. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years we should sustain and support it.”

  - Boston Globe, March 2, 2006

“I respect and will protect a woman’s right to choose.”

  -2002 Questionnaire for the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL)

  Boston Globe, July 3, 2005

From the Right:

“I am pro-life. I believe that abortion is the wrong choice except in cases of incest, rape, and to save the life of the mother. I wish the people of America agreed, and that the laws of our nation could reflect that view. But while the nation remains so divided over abortion, I believe that the states, through the democratic process, should determine their own abortion laws and not have them dictated by judicial mandate.”

  - Boston Globe, Op-Ed, July 26, 2005

More from the Right:

“Every decision I have made as Governor in a very liberal state has been on the side of favoring life.” – Governor Romney

- Robert Behre, “Romney Gets S.C. Support,” Charleston Post-Courier, January 30, 2007

STEM CELL RESEARCH

From the Left:

“Romney has decided to support experimentation on surplus frozen embryos from in-vitro fertilization procedures.”

  - National Review Online, February 11, 2005

“At a campaign appearance at Brandeis University in June 2002, Romney strongly endorsed stem cell research.”

  - Boston Globe, December 17, 2006  Read the article

From the Center:

“Governor Mitt Romney set off a storm of criticism yesterday after he declared in a published interview that he favored banning a specific type of stem cell research. Scientists and the leader of the state Senate accused him of trying to block a promising avenue of research, even as antiabortion groups assailed him for declaring that he did not object to stem cell research involving embryos from fertility clinics.”

  - Boston Globe, February 11, 2005  Read the article

    From the Right:

“I studied the issue for many months, and entered into conversation with experts from across the nation who were looking for consensus solutions, like Stanford’s Dr. William Hurlbut.  In the end, I became persuaded that the stem-cell debate was grounded in a false premise, and that the way through it was around it: by the use of scientific techniques that could produce the equivalent of embryonic stem cells but without cloning, creating, harming, or destroying developing human lives.”

  - Governor Mitt Romney, Op-Ed, “A Stem-Cell Solution,” National Review Online, June 15, 2007

EMERGENCY CONTRACEPTION

From the Left:

“When he ran for governor in 2002, Romney said he supported expanding access to the emergency contraception pill, a high dose of hormones that women can take to prevent pregnancy up to five days after sex . . . On a questionnaire Planned Parenthood gave to the gubernatorial candidates in 2002, Romney answered ‘yes’ to the question, ‘Do you support efforts to increase access to emergency contraception?’ “

  - Boston Globe, July 7, 2005

From the Right:

“Yesterday I vetoed a bill that the Legislature forwarded to my desk. Though described by its sponsors as a measure relating to contraception, there is more to it than that. The bill does not involve only the prevention of conception: The drug it authorizes would also terminate life after conception.”

  - Governor Mitt Romney, Op-Ed, “Why I Vetoed The Contraception Bill,” Boston Globe, July 26, 2005  Read the article

GAY RIGHTS

From the Left:

“All citizens deserve equal rights, regardless of their sexual orientation. While he does not support gay marriage, Mitt Romney believes domestic partnership status should be recognized in a way that includes the potential for health benefits and rights of survivorship.”

  - Romney’s 2002 campaign website

“Mitt and Kerry Wish You a Great Pride Weekend! All citizens deserve equal rights, regardless of their sexual preference”

  - A flier handed out at “Gay Pride” by the Romney/Healey Campaign  See the flier here

“We have discussed a number of important issues such as the Federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which I have agreed to co-sponsor, and if possible broaden to include housing and credit, and a bill to create a federal panel to find ways to reduce gay and lesbian youth suicide, which I also support. One issue I want to clarify concerns [grammar in context] President Clinton’s “don’t ask, don’t tell, don’t pursue” military policy. I believe that the Clinton compromise was a step in the right direction. I am also convinced that it is the first of a number of steps that will ultimately lead to gays and lesbians being able to serve openly and honestly in our nation’s military. That goal will only be reached when preventing discrimination against gays and lesbians is a mainstream concern, which is a goal we share…”

  - Governor Romney letter to Log Cabin Republicans, October 6, 1994  Read the letter here

From the Right:

Lopez: “And what about the 1994 letter to the Log Cabin Republicans where you indicated you would support the Federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) and seemed open to changing the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy in the military? Are those your positions today?

Gov. Romney: “No. I don’t see the need for new or special legislation. My experience over the past several years as governor has convinced me that ENDA would be an overly broad law that would open a litigation floodgate and unfairly penalize employers at the hands of activist judges…As for military policy and the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy, I trust the counsel of those in uniform who have set these policies over a dozen years ago. I agree with President Bush’s decision to maintain this policy and I would do the same.”

  - Interview with National Review, December 14, 2006  Read the interview

MARRIAGE AMENDMENT

From the Left:

In 2002, before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court declared same-sex marriage protected by the Constitution, Romney denounced as “too extreme” the effort by pro-family groups to enact a preemptive state Marriage Protection Amendment prohibiting homosexual marriage, civil unions and same-sex public employee benefits.

  - Boston Phoenix, May 14-20, 2004

From the Right:

MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough: “Do you support a national constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage?”

Governor Romney: “Boy, I sure do. You know, that’s a topic that’s really, I think, very important to the country because marriage is not just about adults. Marriage is about the development and nurturing of kids, and in my view, the development of a child is enhanced by having a mom and dad. And so, I think it’s very important that we have a national standard because marriage is a status. You get married in one place and then you move to another, you’re still married at least in the eyes of the community and the children and the benefits may not follow you, but ultimately we’re going to have one standard of marriage in this country and that standard ought to be one man and one woman.”

  - MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” September 17, 2007

GUN RIGHTS

From the Left:

“He [Romney] is a supporter of the federal assault weapons ban.”

  - Romney 2002 campaign website

More from the Left:

In his 1994 US Senate run, Romney backed two gun-control measures strongly opposed by the National Rifle Association and other gun-rights groups: the Brady Bill, which imposed a five-day waiting period on gun sales, and a ban on certain assault weapons.

“That’s not going to make me the hero of the NRA,” Romney told the Boston Herald in 1994.

At another campaign stop that year, he told reporters: “I don’t line up with the NRA.”

  - Boston Globe, January 14, 2007  Read the article

From the Right:

“Americans should have the right to own and possess firearms as guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution,” said Governor Romney. “I’m proud to be among the many decent, law-abiding men and women who safely use firearms.”

  - Governor Romney, News Release, January 12, 2007

WAITING PERIODS FOR GUNS

From the Left:

Regarding the Brady Bill which required waiting periods to buy a handgun, Romney stated, “I don’t think [the waiting period] will have a massive effect on crime but I think it will have a positive effect.”

  - Boston Herald, August 1, 1994

From the Right:

“Romney says he still backs the ban on assault weapons, but he won’t say whether he stands by the Brady Bill.  And after the gun show tour, his campaign declined to say whether he would still describe himself as a supporter of tough gun laws.”

  - Boston Globe, January 14, 2007  Read the article

MINIMUM WAGE INCREASE

From the Left:

“The minimum wage is important to our economy and Mitt Romney supports minimum wage increase, at least in line with inflation.”

  - Romney 2002 campaign website

From the Right:

Governor Mitt Romney yesterday rejected the Legislature’s plan to raise the state minimum wage to $8 an hour over two years, angering Democratic lawmakers and advocates who accused him of abandoning a 2002 campaign pledge to significantly boost the pay of low-wage workers.

  - Boston Globe, July 22, 2006  Read the article

EDUCATION

During his 1994 campaign for Senate he continually called for the abolishment of the Department of Education.

  - Club for Growth’s White Paper on Mitt Romney

Governor Romney now supports the No Child Left Behind Act.

  - Club for Growth’s White Paper on Mitt Romney

IMMIGRATION

From the Left:

In a November 2005 interview with the Boston Globe, Romney described immigration proposals by McCain and others as “quite different” from amnesty, because they required illegal immigrants to register with the government, work for years, pay taxes, not take public benefits, and pay a fine before applying for citizenship.

“That’s very different than amnesty, where you literally say, ‘OK, everybody here gets to stay,’ ” Romney said in the interview. “It’s saying you could work your way into becoming a legal resident of the country by working here without taking benefits and then applying and then paying a fine.”

Romney did not specifically endorse McCain’s bill, saying he had not yet formulated a full position on immigration. But he did speak approvingly of efforts by McCain and Bush to solve the nation’s immigration crisis, calling them “reasonable proposals.”

Romney also said in the interview that it was not “practical or economic for the country” to deport the estimated 12 million immigrants living in the US illegally. “These people contribute in many cases to our economy and to our society,” he said. “In some cases, they do not. But that’s a whole group we’re going to have to determine how to deal with.”

  - Boston Globe, March 16, 2007  Read the article

From the Right:

In his appeals to conservative voters, Romney has made the Arizona senator’s work on immigration one of his favorite targets. When McCain and other senators unveiled the latest reform bill two weeks ago, Romney called it the “wrong approach” and immediately launched a television ad slamming “amnesty” for illegal immigrants.

  - Boston Globe, June 1, 2007  Read the article

TAXES

From the Left:

“Governor Romney…imposed a slew of fee hikes and tax ‘loophole’ closures….The largest of these was $259 million worth of fee hikes in FY 2004, the bulk of which came from higher Registry of Deeds fees.  Smaller fee hikes, including higher charges for boaters and golfers, we imposed in FY 2003 and FY 2005.  Romney also sought $128 million worth of so-called tax loophole closures for FY 2004; $70 million for FY 2005; and $170 million for FY 2006, which were later reduced to $85 million due to backlash from business leaders.”

  - Club for Growth’s White Paper on Mitt Romney

“Romney continues to oppose the flat tax with harsh language, calling the tax ‘unfair.’”

  - Club for Growth’s White Paper on Mitt Romney

Romney didn’t support President Bush’s tax cuts in 2003.  That earned him praise from liberal Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA) 

  - Boston Globe, April 11, 2003.

From the Right:

“I said no to a tax hike; raising taxes hurts working people and scares away jobs. I also said no to more borrowing; borrowing just shifts our problems to the backs of our kids…Instead, I went after waste, inefficiency, duplication, and patronage.”

  - Governor Romney, Boston Globe, October 24, 2005

NO NEW TAXES PLEDGE

From the Left:

In 2002, Romney broke with his predecessor, Jane Swift, and Republican governors before her by declining to sign a written vow not to raise taxes once in office.

- Boston Globe, January 5, 2007  Read the article

From the Right:

Almost five years after he refused to sign a “no new taxes” pledge during his campaign for governor, Mitt Romney announced yesterday that he had done just that, as his campaign for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination began in earnest.

  - Boston Globe, January 5, 2007  Read the article

CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAWS

From the Left:

Governor Romney has changed his position on key campaign finance reform issues several times during public life. During his 1994 Senate campaign, he held far left positions that advocated for abolishing PACs and creating strict campaign spending limits.

- Club for Growth’s White Paper on Mitt Romney

From the Right:

As he runs for President, Romney abandoned his previous stance and has come out as a harsh critic of McCain-Feingold, and those presidential candidates who support it. His transformation has even propelled him to call for the legislation’s repeal.

  - Club for Growth’s White Paper on Mitt Romney

ON HIS FAVORITE BOOK

From the Left:

He told Fox News his favorite book is L. Ron Hubbard’s “Battlefield Earth”

From the Right:

He also told Fox news his favorite book is the The Bible

Or

Who Knows:

His MySpace page said his favorite book is “Huckleberry Finn”

Romney on the economy while governor:

During his four-year term as Massachusetts governor, which began in the depths of a recession, the number of jobs grew by just 0.5 percent, compared with 5.5 percent nationally, according to Labor Department statistics. Only three states did worse: Ohio, Louisiana, and Michigan.
Manufacturing employment in Massachusetts slid 12 percent, more than double the national average; the state fared only slightly better than Michigan, which lost more than 15 percent of manufacturing jobs during that period.

Said illegal immigrants contribute greatly to the economy.

Romney Raised Taxes and Fees Repeatedly. “In [Romney’s] first year in office, the state increased hundreds of fees, making it more expensive to get a driver’s license, marry, or buy a house.” In 2003, Romney signed off on more tax and fee hikes than any other governor. [Boston Globe, 10/24/05; Congress Daily, 8/28/03]

Massachusetts Taxes Increased by 5 Percent. During the Romney’s administration, Bay Staters saw their taxes burden increase by 5.1 percent in real terms. [Massachusetts State-Local Tax Burden Compared to National Average (1970-20060, The Tax Foundation]

Romney Raised Taxes on Businesses. “Governor Romney has taken great pride in forcing businesses to pay a more equitable share of state taxes over the past two years. Last January he filed a bill to tighten the tax code for the third time.” [Editorial, Boston Globe, 5/6/05]
***

Sphere: Related Content

Mike Huckabee Plays Evangelical Card- Admits To Raising Taxes

Monday, January 14th, 2008

Found via Gateway Pundit


Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee played the Evangelical card.
The Washington Post reported:

Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee touted his candidacy Saturday as a chance for evangelical Christians to lead the Republican Party rather than just support its candidates.

“I don’t presume that you automatically support me because of a common faith,” Huckabee told a group of more than 100 conservative pastors. “I know I have to earn that. But I also recognize that there is a unique kind of opportunity. For a long time, those of us who are people of faith are asked to support candidates who would come and talk to us. But rarely has there been one who comes from us.”

Mark Levin called this tactic “deplorable campaigning.”
Governor Huckabee also admitted to raising taxes while governor on Face the Nation on Sunday:

Also, in case you folks did not know…

Ernie Dumas writes: Mike Huckabee raised more taxes in 10 years in office than Bill Clinton did in his 12 years.
Clinton tax increases- Increased the general sales tax from 3 percent to 4 per- cent (Act 63 of special session of 1983)

- Increased sales tax by half of 1 percent and extended the tax to used vehicles (Act 3 of 1991)

- Increased the corporate income tax from 6 to 6.5 percent for corporations with net incomes greater than $100,000 (Act 1052 of 1991)

- Levied a 16 percent tax on snuff (yes, there are a few people who still dip snuff) (Act 628 of 1987)

- Levied a 25-cent tax on each pack of cigarette papers (yes, there are people who still roll their own) (Act 1045 of 1987)

- Increased the cigarette tax from 17.75 cents a pack to 21 cents a pack (Act 399 of 1983)

- Increased the cigarette tax by a penny a pack (Act 1211 of 1991)

- Levied a 2 percent tax on certain tourism items like admission to theme parks (Act 38 of 1989)

- Increased excise taxes on mixed drinks sold for on-premises consumption (not wine or beer) (Act 844 of 1983 and Act 908 of 1989)

- Increased motor fuel taxes by 1 cent a gallon (1979)

- Increased motor fuel taxes by 4 cents a gallon (Act 456 of 1985) (Clinton vetoed the bill but the legislature overrode his veto.)

- Increased the tax on motor fuels by 5 cents a gallon

- Increased motor vehicle registration fees, 1979 (subsequently repealed)
Huckabee tax increases

- Imposed an income tax surcharge of 3 percent on tax liabilities of individuals and domestic and foreign corporations (Act 38, 1st special session of 2003). (It was temporary until revenues improved. The legislature repealed it in 2005.)

- Increased the sales tax by 1/8 of one percent by initiated act (but it was a personal campaign by Huckabee, who campaigned across the state for it and took a celebrated bass boat trip for 4 days down the Arkansas River holding press conferences in each river city to urge passage of the act) (there’s lots more)

Sphere: Related Content

Huckabee loves raising taxes, but won’t talk about them…

Monday, January 7th, 2008

Can y’all tell that I REALLY don’t like nor trust Huckabee?
Mike Huckabee RAISES GAS and other taxes as Governor.

********
GOP Debate: Huckabee has to be asked whether he raised taxes 4 times

Sphere: Related Content

The View - Tax Talk

Wednesday, December 12th, 2007

Here is an interesting discussion this morning on The View and the subject taxes.
Whoopi basically says it bullshit that she can’t leave her “stuff” to her kids without the gubment jacking it (taxing it) again.

Joy (the ultimate bimbo), God this lady is such a retarded fuck, between her and Sherri the I.Q level on that show, not to mention the audience, should apply for gubment intelligence benefits.

Anywho Joy, the typical liberal thinks the Gubment taking your money is ok, shit, she thinks they need to take more!

I love to listen to liberal talk about taxes and the playa hating mentality that goes along with it.
I’m a broke ass median income Negro, and although I would love to have so much money that I could wipe my ass with it, I have never understood the moronic mindset of some liberals who think that it tis perfectly ok for the Gubment to jack your hard earned dollars.

Anywho if your bored and frozen in, watch the clip tis amusing.

Oh the tax 411 below is from Rush’s essential stack of stuff pile, slightly dated, but useful.



tax1.gif
*Data covers calendar year 2003, not fiscal year 2003
- and includes all income, not just wages, excluding Social Security

This is the data for calendar year 2003 just released in October 2005 by the Internal Revenue Service. The share of total income taxes paid by the top 1% of wage earners rose to 34.27% from 33.71% in 2002. Their income share (not just wages) rose from 16.12% to 16.77%. However, their average tax rate actually dropped from 27.25% down to 24.31%

Think of it this way: less than 3-1/2 dollars out of every $100 paid in income taxes in the United States is paid by someone in the bottom 50% of wage earners. Are the top half millionaires? Noooo, more like “thousandaires.” The top 50% were those individuals or couples filing jointly who earned $29,019 and up in 2003. (The top 1% earned $295,495-plus.) Americans who want to are continuing to improve their lives, and those who don’t want to, aren’t. Here are the wage earners in each category and the percentages they pay:

The top 1% pay over a third, 34.27% of all income taxes. (Up from 2003: 33.71%) The top 5% pay 54.36% of all income taxes (Up from 2002: 53.80%). The top 10% pay 65.84% (Up from 2002: 65.73%). The top 25% pay 83.88% (Down from 2002: 83.90%). The top 50% pay 96.54% (Up from 2002: 96.50%). The bottom 50%? They pay a paltry 3.46% of all income taxes (Down from 2002: 3.50%). The top 1% is paying nearly ten times the federal income taxes than the bottom 50%! And who earns what? The top 1% earns 16.77% of all income (2002: 16.12%). The top 5% earns 31.18% of all the income (2002: 30.55%). The top 10% earns 42.36% of all the income (2002: 41.77%); the top 25% earns 64.86% of all the income (2002: 64.37%) , and the top 50% earns 86.01% (2002: 85.77%) of all the income.

Sphere: Related Content

“Bench ‘em!”

Thursday, December 6th, 2007

Found this clip on Betsy’s Page 

Republican Congressman Eric Cantor’s team has put out this video to look back on the first year of the Democratic Congress.


Sphere: Related Content

What the hell happened to you Democrats? JFK on Taxes

Wednesday, December 5th, 2007

Found on the blog Federal Republic

WOW! - Report: Pumpkin tax repealed

Thursday, November 1st, 2007

pumpkin.jpgFrom Michelle Malkin

Looks like the Iowa Department of Revenue listened to the massive backlash yesterday over its pumpkin tax. Commenter LuxEternam sends word that the state has backed off. Via the Des Moines Register:

Here’s a Halloween riddle: What happened when Iowa Department of Revenue officials tried to tax pumpkins?

They got squashed.

Administrators announced Wednesday that they were backing off a policy of charging sales tax on pumpkins intended for use as jack-o’-lanterns.

The decision came after The Des Moines Register reported the state’s claim that the big orange gourds did not qualify for the food exemption because they generally are used for decoration.

The department said it announced the policy last year, but it acknowledged that many people didn’t notice until Wednesday, when the story whipsawed around the Internet and drew scads of derisive comments.

The governor has called on the department to offer refunds to consumers and retailers.

To borrow Laura Ingraham’s phrase: Power to the people!

Sphere: Related Content

Iowa begins taxing pumpkins

Wednesday, October 31st, 2007

pumpkinpuking.jpgI’m just curious, how can you Democrats who read stories like this can look at yourself in the mirror with a straight face and proudly proclaim that people like yourself who would do retarded shit like this should be given MORE power. What are you people smoking? Please share!

DES MOINES, Iowa (AP)  The taxman in Iowa is going after jack-o-lanterns this Halloween.

The new department policy was implemented after officials decided that pumpkins are used primarily for Halloween decorations, not food, and should be taxed, said Renee Mulvey, the department’s spokeswoman.

“We made the change because we wanted the sales tax law to match what we thought the predominant use was,” Mulvey said. We thought the predominant use was for decorations or jack-o-lanterns.

Previously, pumpkins had been considered an edible squash and exempted from the tax. The department ruled this year that pumpkins are taxable ” with some exceptions”  if they are advertised for use as jack-o-lanterns or decorations.

Iowans planning to eat pumpkins can still get a tax exemption if they fill out a form.

The new policy, published in the department’s September newsletter, has some pumpkin farmers feeling tricked this Halloween.

“I don’t mind paying taxes, but let’s get real here, people,”  said Bob Kautz, owner of the Buffalo Pumpkin Patch in Buffalo, just west of Davenport.

Kautz, who has owned his farm for seven years, was particularly dismayed with the notion of requiring customers to fill out a form verifying that they planned to eat the pumpkins they were buying.

“It’s another crazy, crazy, stupid thing,” he said.

Kautz said he will estimate how many pumpkins were bought for non-food purposes, and then will send the tax on that amount to the revenue department.

“It gets unfeasible for people to have small businesses,” he said.

Danny Carroll, who owns Carroll’s Pumpkin Farm in Grinnell with his wife, said he will have to pay the sales tax out of profits.

Essentially, they just reduced our income by 6 percent,” he said. “It’s too bad, but it’s not surprising.”

Other Iowa pumpkin sellers also expressed confusion about the new policy. Some, like Carroll, said they were unaware of it. A few said they have been charging the tax this Halloween season and few customers have complained. None said they are asking customers to fill out the tax-exemption certificate.

Mulvey said department officials don’t know how much extra revenue to expect from the pumpkin tax.

Sphere: Related Content

Pelosi finesses tax message

Tuesday, October 30th, 2007

shakedown1.gifHouse Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is finessing her support of Rep. Charles Rangel’s (D-N.Y.) controversial new tax bill, highlighting Democrats’ concern about how Republicans plan to use it in the 2008 elections.Following the unveiling of arguably the most politically explosive domestic policy bill of the 110th Congress last Thursday, Pelosi seemed to wholeheartedly support the tax overhaul authored by Ways and Means Committee Chairman Rangel.

“I certainly support his plan,” Pelosi (D-Calif.) said to the assembled reporters.

But when the transcript of the briefing came out, words were inserted — highlighted by brackets — clarifying that she supported his goal, if not his specific proposals.

The final transcript read: “I certainly support his plan [to begin tax reform.]”

Read the rest here

Sphere: Related Content

The Top 10 Things Democrats Don’t Want You to Know

Saturday, October 27th, 2007

hamlet.jpg

Posted by: John Campbell on Townhall.com - found on Conservative Grapevine

The Republican Staff on the Ways and Means Committee put this fact sheet together, I feel it is quite enlightening, and wanted to share it with you.When Chairman Rangel introduced his long-awaited tax legislation yesterday morning, there were certain things he conveniently forgot to mention. Among the things the Democratic Majority doesn’t want you to know about the “Mother of All Tax Hikes”:

1. MARRIAGE PENALTY ON STEROIDS:  The bill imposes a surtax of 4% on single filers with incomes above $150,000 and $200,000 for married couples filing jointly.  After years of fighting efforts to repeal the marriage penalty, the Majority is taking the battle to a new level by putting a massive new marriage penalty into the tax code.

2. KISS YOUR DEDUCTIONS GOODBYE:  The surtax is imposed on adjusted gross income, not taxable income.  That may sound like an arcane difference, but it is an important one.  Now, when filling out your tax return, you add up your income to get your adjusted gross income and then subtract deductions for things like charitable contributions, mortgage interest, state and local taxes, medical expenses, un-reimbursed business expenses, or your standard deduction.  But the surtax is applied to the AGI before you take deductions. So it has the effect of taxing people on items that they can ordinarily deduct. 

3. MAKING THE U.S. A LEADER IN HIGH TAXES:  Combined with the implicit sunset of the lower personal marginal tax rates after 2010, the Democrats’ plan would have the effect of raising the top personal federal marginal income tax rate to more than 44%.  The other 29 OECD countries – essentially other developed nations - have an average personal top marginal tax rate of 35.7%.  In fact, only five OECD countries would have higher top marginal tax rates in 2011 than the U.S. if the Rangel bill is enacted. 

4. SMALL BUSINESS TRIPLE-WHAMMY:  Millions of Americans who own small businesses and who pay taxes on that income on their individual tax returns are going to face a triple-whammy.  First, they will be hit with the 4% surtax on some of their income.  Second, many of them will lose the Section 199 manufacturing deduction that lowers taxes on their business income.  And third, this is happening at the same time as incorporated businesses get an across-the-board rate cut, making it even tougher for these small business engines of job-creation to compete. 

5. FUZZY MATH:  A summary of the Chairman’s bill indicates it repeals the AMT but includes a provision called “Limitation of Benefits” to keep high income individuals from benefiting too much from repeal.  But the Limitation of Benefits RAISES $36 billion more than it would “cost” to repeal the AMT.    So even the alleged tax cut is by any definition a tax hike. 

6. IF A TREE FALLS IN A FOREST…. Like the famous Zen question, “what is the sound of one hand clapping?” the Chairman’s bill forces us to ponder how to give tax cuts to people who don’t pay taxes.  The answer is to have other hard-working Americans pay more taxes so the government can write a bigger check to folks who have no income tax liability.  The Chairman’s bill would spend close to $40 billion over the next decade in various forms of “tax cuts” for (e.g., payments from IRS to) people who don’t pay income taxes.

7. TAXING PHANTOM INCOME:  The bill would require businesses of all sizes and sectors to discontinue the use of an accounting regime for their inventory known as LIFO (Last-in-First-Out).  They would have eight years to pay the taxes resulting from the forced revaluation of their inventory, even though they would have had no economic income.  The income might be phantom, but the $106 billion in taxes that will be paid and the associated impacts on businesses certainly won’t be.

8. CAPITAL LOSSES:  Current law provides a top tax rate on long-term capital gains of 15%.  The surtax, because it is applied to Adjusted Gross Income, has the effect of raising the tax rate on long-term gains by another 4% or more for millions of Americans.  This assault on the jobs and growth-producing 2003 tax cut presages what lies ahead as we approach the sunset of the Bush tax cuts.

9. GETTING A HEAD START ON A RUN IN THE WRONG DIRECTION:  In 2003, Congress lowered the top tax rate on dividends to 15%.  All signals suggest that the Democrats want to let those lower rates expire at the end of 2010, sending the top tax rate on dividends back to the top marginal tax rate, which will be 39.6%.  As a helpful head start, the Chairman’s bill subjects dividends to the surtax, so taxpayers can begin to get accustomed to seeing more of their retirement savings eroded by taxes, setting the stage for the leap to 44% or more after 2010. 

10. THE WRONG CHOICE FOR AMERICAN COMPETITIVENESS:  The Democrats claim this bill is responsive to Treasury Secretary Paulson’s efforts to advance U.S. competitiveness.  But the Secretary never embraced a proposal to delay the ability of businesses to take deductions for legitimate business expenses.  Despite the Majority’s rhetoric to the contrary, this bill will make it much harder for American companies to compete abroad.

Sphere: Related Content

What folks on the left are posting, CRAZINESS!

Friday, October 26th, 2007

liberals14.jpg

Feeling kinda lazy today, it’s been a long week. I thought for a good laugh I would troll the liberal blog world to see what they are talkin about. Not much, really.
Here are a few examples, no commentary necessary. However, I did crack up at the dude praising that nut Rangel and his economy killing tax scheme.
I never thought I would actually read a blog where someone would actually spell out for all to see praise for a tax pimp lunatic.
Also, please make sure you watch the You Tube clip below and pass it to other right leaning blogs. Folks will get a kick out of it.

From the blog Calitics: John Edwards will be our First Green President

edwardsjoker.jpgPresident Bush plans to play the part of the hero by visiting California, now ravaged by fire. But on this issue he’s the villain — it’s two years after Hurricane Katrina and the only progress he’s made is actually acknowledging that global warming exists. If we’re going to avoid tragedies like this in the future, we must take the long-term view. On this point, the science is clear: global warming has already led to increased wildfire activity in the U.S., and if we don’t dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the near future, the problem is going to get much worse. Friends of the EarthMore than ever, we need a president committed to making real and deep change in how we treat the planet. 

 “After 7 years of George Bush - the worst, most destructive environmental president in modern history - it is definitely time for change, and that change starts by electing John Edwards as President.” 


From the blog, Left in Alabama: SCHIP - Alabama Republicans still oppose health care for kids

schip.JPGRobert Aderholt, whose name led all the rest, voted against a new State Children’s Health Insurance Program reauthorization bill today. He was followed closely by the rest of Alabama’s Republican Congressmen: Spencer Bachus, Jo Bonner, Terry Everett and Mike Rogers. Naturally, they were acting as rubber stamps for George Bush — again! Empty out Fort Knox to pay for foreign wars, but not a penny to spare for America’s children. Go figure. Better yet, go vote — against these turkeys — on Nov. 3rd, 2008.I’ll say it again: Democrats should be lined up three deep to run against these guys next year. And Everett is retiring, so the 2nd District race is even more attractive.

You liberals need to read…

Steyn: The real war on children