March 9-10, 2011
Mar 09 06:07 O'Care's Mountain of Hidden Costs Mar 09 08:16 Debunking Nothing Mar 09 09:48 Ellison's Spin Machine Working Overtime Mar 09 14:16 St. Paul's LGA Lobbying Mar 09 18:38 BREAKING NEWS: Wisconsin Stalemate Over Mar 09 18:57 DFL's (LACK OF) Integrity Showing Mar 10 01:30 DFL Special Interests Lobby Against Photo ID Mar 10 10:20 Reclaiming the Vocabulary, Hijacking Democracy Edition Mar 10 14:35 The Left's Violent Rhetoric
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
O'Care's Mountain of Hidden Costs
I cringed when then-Speaker Pelosi said that we'd have to pass O'Care to find out everything that's in it. After reading Sally Pipes' article , I'm not cringing. I'm spitting mad. This monstrosity must be killed ASAP. Here's why:
The president's budget is so opaque that Rep. Dave Camp, R-Mich., the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, which oversees Medicare and tax laws, has wondered whether Democrats are now trying to hide the costs of their signature piece of legislation.
In reality, the president and his congressional allies have obscured the costs of ObamaCare since the beginning.
There are so many provisions which weren't defined at the time of the bill signing. It was loaded with hundreds of "The Secretary of HHS shall[s]". It must be awful. Otherwise, why would they need this?
Just a few months later, the Congressional Research Service stated that the number of new federal bureaucracies created by the health care law was "unknowable."
Whatever the count is, it's over 150 agencies that we know of. It might be higher. The more we learn aboout this monstrosity, the more it's apparent that we need the SCOTUS to rule it unconstitutional ASAP. If it isn't ruled unconstitutional, it'll destroy the states' budgets.
Though that might sound like hyperbole, it isn't. O'Care is the biggest gov't albatross to hit the states in the history of the United States, especially when you factor in the Medicaid increases. Then there these types of spending increases:
HHS's department of Public Affairs, the agency that has run P.R. campaigns to sell the health care law to the public, is requesting a whopping 315% budget increase.
I don't know what that agency's budget is but tripling it ain't in the cards. File that in the 'we aren't paying for that pig's lipstick' category. If they want to sell their plan, which I've noticed isn't that popular, let the special interests pay for it. We're running unprecedented deficits. We aren't paying for a PR campaign, especially a PR campaign that won't change anyone's minds.
This is the most distressing paragraph in the article:
Many doctors have been squeezed so much by the feds that they're no longer even seeing Medicare or Medicaid patients because they lose money on them. These proposed changes could make it even harder for seniors and the poor to find doctors, and drive up the price of care for everyone with private insurance.
First, we learn that we're getting stuck with a huge deficit from Obamacare. Then we find out that O'Care won't help seniors. That's the most distressing part of this entire charade.
Posted Wednesday, March 9, 2011 6:07 AM
Comment 1 by nursetom at 10-Mar-11 12:00 PM
Regarding the Obama administration's illegal immigration policies, which is pretty much the same as those of the last three previous presidencies, 'fuzzy logic' seems to be the order of the day. The reality is that we have somewhere around 20 million people living in the United States illegally. They became outlaws the day they entered. Those who are working are breaking more laws by committing fraud. Additionally, since we have no way of screening these lawbreakers, we should not be surprised to find that 30% of all prison inmates are illegal aliens. Federal law requires that all illegal aliens be arrested, and deported. Yet the fuzzy logic is to ignore the law and look at the potential for increasing the tax base and political power. Even if amnesty were even remotely acceptable, the failure to stem the tide of this insidious invasion gives new definition to the term 'fuzzy logic'.
Debunking Nothing
Obama's apologists at MPP insist that Derek Walbank has debunked Michele Bachmann's claims about $105,000,000,000 being appropriated for O'Care. They've done nothing of the sort. Here's their main 'proof':
When I asked Bachmann spokesman Doug Sachtleben about this on Friday, he said there's no question this was written in the bill. It is, he said, a question of emphasis in debate.
There is no question this funding was written into the SENATE BILL. That's the bill that was signed into law.
Then Wallbank raises some critical points which I will summarize:
Did Bachmann not read the bill?
Did Bachmann not understand the bill?
How did Bachmann not learn about this during the 10 months of debate prior to passage?
The House passed their version in October 2009, the Senate passed their version at Christmas. The final vote came on March 21, 2010. Did Bachmann not read the bill during the nearly four month period prior to the final vote?
I just finished this post about how hard the Obama administration has worked to hide the costs of O'Care. When the bill's writers work hard enough to hide the appropriation of money, it's quite possible to hide those appropriations.
Here's what Dave Camp, the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee said about the hidden funding:
The president's budget is so opaque that Rep. Dave Camp , R-Mich., the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, which oversees Medicare and tax laws, has wondered whether Democrats are now trying to hide the costs of their signature piece of legislation.
Rather than debunking Rep. Bachmann, Wallbank has exposed how willing the Obama administration was to hide the costs of their legislation. That's likely because they a) know how expensive it is and b) want to get it implemented before it's discovered how expensive it is.
The simple truth is that O'Care doesn't shrink health care costs. It doesn't reduce the deficit. It won't change people's behavior, which is the key to true longterm cost reduction. Unfortunately, what it does is raise taxes. And health care costs.
Twenty years from now, people will see O'Care for what it is: the most expensive, the most worthless legislation in U.S. history.
Posted Wednesday, March 9, 2011 8:16 AM
No comments.
Ellison's Spin Machine Working Overtime
If there's anything that Keith Ellison is good at, it's spin. This week, Ellison's spin machine is working overtime . In fact, he's using his spin in a fundraising appeal:
This Thursday, Congressional Republicans, led by Rep. Peter King, will hold a congressional hearing on radicalization in America.
Make no mistake about it. Radicalization is a challenge that we must confront as a nation. It is an issue that requires the utmost attention and due diligence with an eye towards keeping all Americans safe.
Unfortunately, these Republicans are pandering to the agenda of the most extreme elements of their party to single out a religious minority. Casting suspicion on an individual community is wrong. It violates the core values of inclusion and fairness that make our country great. Even worse, treating radicalization as a problem from a particular community can undermine our security--not make America safer.
Will you stand with Keith as he testifies before the King committee on Thursday? He's taking our message of inclusion and standing up against the GOP's divisive agenda .
How are Rep. King's hearings "casting suspicion on an individual community"? I've listened to Chairman King talk about the radicalization subject before. There's no question that he consistently differentiates between radical imams and the people attending those mosques.
Rep. Ellison's hypocrisy is exposed by his comments after Gabby Giffords' assassination attempt :
"The political rhetoric has grown increasingly toxic, and making allusions (to) guns and reloading, and armed and dangerous, certainly contributes to a toxic political environment, and does have consequences," he told MPR.
Here's the rhetoric Rep. Ellison was referring to:
"I want people in Minnesota armed and dangerous on this issue of the energy tax because we need to fight back. Thomas Jefferson told us 'having a revolution every now and then is a good thing,' and the people, we the people, are going to have to fight back hard if we're not going to lose our country.
"I'm a foreign correspondent on enemy lines and I try to let everyone back here in Minnesota know exactly the nefarious activities that are taking place in Washington."
Let's remember Ellison's incendiary rhetoric prior to his election to Congress:
In 2000 he spoke at a fundraiser for longtime fugitive Kathleen Soliah, aka Sara Jane Olson. The text of his speech was posted on a website, www.soliah.com, by Minneapolis resident Greg Lang.
Ellison praised Soliah for 'fighting for freedom.' At the time, she faced charges of planting pipe bombs under two Los Angeles police cars as a member of the Symbionese Liberation Army, a paramilitary organization whose slogan was 'Death to the fascist insect that preys on the life of the people.' Soliah pleaded guilty in 2001. In 2002 she also pleaded guilty to the murder of Myrna Opsahl, a bank customer shot by another SLA member during a holdup. She's now serving a long prison sentence.
But Ellison's call to the crowd was broader than a plea to aid Soliah. 'We need to come together and free "all the Saras,' he proclaimed.
Ellison called for the freeing of a woman pled guilty for killing LAPD police officers while she was part of a radical paramilitary organization. That's the personification of a divisive political agenda. Listen to the radical paramilitary organization's slogan:
'Death to the fascist insect that preys on the life of the people.'
That slogan, coupled with his plea to free "all the Saras", aka murderers, is as divisive as divisive gets. Still, it gets worse:
As a criminal defense attorney, Ellison told the crowd, he saw "startling similarities" between Soliah and the gang members he represents: Bloods, Vice Lords, Gangster Disciples. He portrayed gang members as misunderstood victims, ordinary folks whose parents 'scrimp, save, maybe sell plates of BBQ chicken so Junior can get an attorney.' Gangs are 'stigmatized' and 'vilified,' he explained, just as Soliah's Symbionese Liberation Army was. 'Nobody ever knows what it means to BE a Blood,' he maintained, 'because they've already said this is "just evil.'
In fact, in Ellison's view, young black men in prison seemed almost to morph into civil rights advocates. 'The people who govern this society,' he suggested, are 'incarcerating all these young black men' in some kind of retribution for the victories of "60s civil rights activists, and those who campaigned to 'free Nelson Mandela.' For the powerful, he said, the 'very idea of black people having civil rights has got to be obliterated with [obviously] the criminal justice system and incarceration.'
This is a vicious man now talking peace, love and brotherhood after making his reputation as a divisive, incendiary figure, as a race hustler and as a terrorist apologist.
Now he's lecturing us about divisive agendas? Now he's warning against stigmatizing an entire (religious) group of people?
Rep. Ellison is a spinmeister, a person with a history of standing up for the worst criminals imaginable. Ignore Rep. Ellison's spin. Stand with the people who've been victimized or criticized by this charlatan.
He isn't worthy of the title of U.S. Congressman. His election to the U.S. House of Representatives shows how far that prestigious legislative body has fallen.
Posted Wednesday, March 9, 2011 9:48 AM
No comments.
St. Paul's LGA Lobbying
Richard Carlbom, Chris Coleman's media flack, is tweeting away this am about all the support that's supposedly out there to not cut LGA for St. Paul and Minneapolis to pay for more LGA for outstate cities. I don't know whether he's lying through his teeth or whether these other mayors are stupid enough to essentially subsidize St. Paul's and Minneapolis's irresponsible spending habits.
Both seem possible.
Why on God's green earth wouldn't cities like Granite Falls, Hutchinson and Alexandria think of St. Paul and Minneapolis as parasites that rob their cities of LGA funding?
St. Paul and Minneapolis have a storied history of spending extravagantly on low priority items. After overspending on frivolities, then they whine that they don't have enough to pay for public safety.
It's time to penalize St. Paul and Minneapolis for their ill-advised spending decisions. Right now, Outstate Minnesota is getting penalized for R.T. Rybak's and Chris Coleman's ill-advised decisions. That needs to stop.
Something that's certain to improve cities' expenditures is legislation that would eliminate the many counterproductive mandates forced on local units of government. This statement by the League of Minnesota Cities highlights Roger Crawford's mandate reform legislation ( HF705 ) and Steve Drazkowski's mandate reform legislation ( HF7 ). Here are some highlights to these reforms:
Some of the provisions in HF 705 would:
Permit the federal single audit to meet the state auditor's requirements (sections 2
and 7).
Remove the requirement that cities report to the state on the 3.2 liquor licenses they issue (sections 3 and 8).
Remove the requirement that cities have a building official under Minnesota Statutes, section 326B.133 (section 4).
Permit alternative publication for cities, and allow the use of city websites instead of newspapers in most instances (section 5).
Change certain interim ordinance (section 6).
Repeal the building fee report required under Minnesota Statutes, section 326B.145 (section 8).
Repeal group insurance mandates required under Minnesota Statutes, section 471.6161 (section 8).
Repeal group insurance aggregate value requirements under Minnesota Statutes, section 471.6161, subdivision 5 (section 8).
Then there's this reform:
And one mandate bill with a huge price tag gets its first hearing on Wednesday morning in the form of SF 371 (Sen. Al DeKruif, R-Madison Lake). This is the traditional sales tax exemption bill for local units of government, and the League plans to testify in support of it.
Here's the difference between the two parties. Republican legislators are looking for ways to help cities without giving them annual bailouts, aka LGA. DFL legislators are trying to paper over big cities' foolish spending decisions with LGA increases.
Mr. Carlbom can attempt to spin it any way he likes but that's the difference between the two parties at this point.
If Gov. Dayton vetoes the GOP reform legislation, he'll be hurting himself politically. If he insists that the legislature appropriate more so St. Paul and Minneapolis can keep being reckless, he'll hurt himself even more.
Posted Wednesday, March 9, 2011 2:16 PM
Comment 1 by Rex Newman at 09-Mar-11 07:08 PM
The devil would be the details, but a bill outlawing local units of government from lobbying the state government makes sense to me. My city, my county, and my school district have no standing to speak for me in St. Paul.
BREAKING NEWS: Wisconsin Stalemate Over
The breaking news from Wisconsin is that the protest over union rights is essentially over. A little before 6:00 pm CT, word broke that Republicans were going to convene a conference committee that would strip out the fiscal parts of the union reform bill.
In doing so, the Senate wouldn't be bound by the quorum rules requiring 20 senators be present to vote on fiscal matters. In stripping out the fiscal parts, this becomes a policy-only bill.
One Democrat was so overwraught that he said "Take a step back from the abyss" in a pained, passion-filled voice.
The reports coming out of Wisconsin say that the conference committee report will be agreed upon this evening. Further, the Senate is expected to vote on the bill tonight, with the Assembly expected to send it to Gov. Walker Thursday morning.
Big labor and the White House poured alot of effort into this protest. They played white-knuckled hardball. Their fleebagger 14 senators left the state. After all that effort, they're about to be handed a major defeat.
Whether this will further damage President Obama remains to be seen. Certainly, it can't help.
What is certain is that this won't make for a smooth rest of the session. With Republicans holding majorities in the Assembly and Senate and with a Republican governor, the Democrats can only put up a spirited fight. It isn't likely to change the outcome of the legislation.
Posted Wednesday, March 9, 2011 6:38 PM
No comments.
DFL's (LACK OF) Integrity Showing
Minutes ago, Tony Sutton issued this statement:
St. Paul- Republican Party of Minnesota Chairman Tony Sutton today issued the following statement in response to comments made by William Hailer, Director of Finance and Caucus Development for the Minnesota DFL House Caucus via his Twitter account. Hailer's comment via Twitter was: 'NPR Exec says modern GOP party is controlled by the Tea Party whom are fairly racists and uneducated: I guess truth gets you fired."
'William Hailer's comment via Twitter echoing NPR executive Ron Schiller's comments earlier this week that the Tea Party and Republican Party are 'racist' and 'uneducated' is unacceptable. It is outrageous that Hailer would make such ridiculous comments. While we expect spirited debate with Democrats, this outrageous comment crosses the line and I assume will not be tolerated by DFLers or DFL leadership in Minnesota,' said Chairman Tony Sutton.
Hailer's tweet is totally unacceptable, not to mention utterly stupid. In this political climate, to make this type of statement goes beyond an unforced error.
This is hateful speech from a close-minded person. What spurred him into thinking that Republicans are bigoted and uneducated is anybody's guess. What the House DFL caucus does in terms of Hailer's employment is up to them. I won't call for his termination but I won't say that isn't appropriate considering the circumstances.
At minimum, Hailer should be suspended and told to formally apologize. Chairman Sutton is right in saying that there's bound to be spirited debate on the issues. That's what makes government healthy. Having a person think that people who don't agree with him on policy are bigots doesn't make the government healthy. Instead, it has a corrosive effect on the legislature.
Posted Wednesday, March 9, 2011 6:57 PM
No comments.
DFL Special Interests Lobby Against Photo ID
If any message jumps off the page of this post , it's that the DFL insists that elderly voters and minorities wouldn't be able to figure out Photo ID. Here's the part where that comes through clearest:
The primary problem with these photo ID bills is that they create new barriers that will take away the right to vote from a significant chunk of voters. These include seniors, people with disabilities, college students, people of color, low-income people, overseas military, rural Minnesotans, and people without housing.
Does the DFL really want to insist that seniors would lose the right to vote simply by making them present a photo ID when voting? Does the DFL insist that making minorities present a photo ID would cause them to lose the right to vote?
Last Sunday, former Secretary of State Mary Kiffmeyer was interviewed by WCCO's Esme Murphy about her photo ID legislation. Rep. Kiffmeyer said during the interview that there's no way of verifying the voter's identity without photo identification. That's an inescapable truth that I wrote about in this post :
Almost immediately, Mansky said something that I questioned. He said that their 'compliance rate', the 'rate at which voters comply with our law, is 99.99 percent.' That's a phony statistic because he doesn't know if the people who signed the login sheets are who they say they are.
Another group that the DFL's special interest allies insist would be prevented from voting are college students. Rep. Kiffmeyer quickly dispatched that argument.
Rep. Kiffmeyer said that the hurdle for college students was actually fairly light. She said that students could actually show their out-of-state drivers license as long as they could show a university's proof of residency. Rep. Kiffmeyer said that the out-of-state drivers license verifies the person's identity, the university's proof of residency establishes them as a legal voter for that precinct.
Here's another failed DFL argument:
The photo ID bills dramatically overhaul Minnesota's excellent election system to solve no apparent problem. During the last weeks of the general election last fall, a group pushing for voter ID, and led by Minnesota Majority, worked feverishly to drum up media attention around their invented case of voter fraud in order to intimidate and scare voters away from the polls.
Anytime I read an argument that uses subjective terms like "Minnesota's excellent election system", I'm cautious. How do we know that Minnesota's election system is excellent? Saying that it's always been excellent based on voter turnout isn't proof.
That's a nice thing to say but it isn't proof of an excellent voting system by itself. High voter turnout isn't proof that the system is excellent. It just means that alot of people voted, possibly because they're civic-minded. It doesn't mean that the system is flawless.
It's worth noting that Minnesota's election laws are the nation's gold standard, in my opinion. I've read them numerous times during the Coleman-Franken recount. They're exceptionally logical, with lots of accountability measures codified into law. In other words, the laws for recounts and for voting through absentee ballots are fine.
The laws aren't fine in determining the person who's voting is eligible to vote in that precinct. That's why Photo ID is essential. It isn't important. It's essential.
I suspect the DFL's biggest objection to Photo ID is the fact that it'd eliminate the need for vouching. I've written repeatedly that vouching is exceptionally prone to voter fraud. Whenever I've written about voting fraud schemes in the context of vouching, I've cited this 2004 post by Powerline's Scott Johnson :
In Minnesota the Bush campaign has come into the possession of the following email from ACT to its Minnesota volunteers:
Election Day is upon us. You are confirmed to volunteer with ACT (America Coming Together - http://www.actforvictory.org/) on Election Day, Tuesday, Nov 2.
We will be creating name badges that include your Ward and Precinct information for each of the thousands of volunteers that day to make it easier to find a volunteer to vouch for a voter at the polls.
I am emailing you to request your street address, city and zipcode. We've already got your other contact information, but your record in our database does not include this information.
You can save us time on election day by replying today to this email with this information, or give us a call at [phone number with St. Paul area code].
In order to get your badge correct, please reply by Thursday.
Thank you for your help and cooperation. See you on Election Day.
There's no other explanation for this email other than saying that it's blueprint for voter fraud. PERIOD. END OF DISCUSSION.
If you're new to a neighborhood and you don't have an updated drivers license or a utility bill proving your residence, all you have to do is ask a neighbor when they're voting and whether they'd vouch for your residence.
You don't talk in terms of volunteers. You don't talk in terms of creating badges "that include your Ward and Precinct information for each of the thousands of volunteers" that will "vouch for a voter at the polls."
These supporters of voter ID claim that 99 percent of Minnesotans already have a state-issued ID. This is absolutely false. The number of voters who would be fenced out by a voter ID law is significantly more. Studies show people without a current government-issued ID typically around 10 percent, with as many as 15 to 20 percent of certain populations, voters over 65 years old, voters under 30, and voters who earn less than $35,000 a year, lacking a government-issued photo ID.
I don't know whether these statistics are accurate. For the sake of this discussion, let's stipulate that they are. These statistics don't indicate that any of these groups would have difficulty getting a Photo ID. It says that a little extra effort would be required but "a little extra effort" isn't the same as imposing a high degree of difficulty.
But to Rep. Mike Benson (R-Rochester), chief author of HF 89, it's 'common sense.' As he said in introducing his bill, 'This is a common sense thing. It's as much common sense as, when I left my room this morning I knew it was going to be cold outside, so I put my coat on. That's how common sense voter ID is for the election process.' Unfortunately for Rep. Benson, not everyone in Minnesota has a coat (er, photo ID) and we surely shouldn't make a fundamental right of democracy depend on having one.
In grade school, we were taught that "With every right comes a responsibility." Based on this post, the DFL is essentially arguing that voters shouldn't have any responsibility, that everything should be made ultra-easy, that all safeguards should be eliminated.
Posted Thursday, March 10, 2011 1:30 AM
No comments.
Reclaiming the Vocabulary, Hijacking Democracy Edition
One of the frequent accusations made by Democrats during the bused-in union protests is that Republicans have hijacked democracy . The latest example of this was Greta's interview of Spencer Coggs, who quickly told Greta that he was still in Illinois.
Reaction to the republicans ramming the bill through the senate Wednesday night was swift. Thousands of trade-unionists and their supporters poured into the streets of Madison, with pleas being sent out for reinforcements. Cries of 'impeach Walker' reverberated everywhere. Fire trucks circled the capitol blaring their sirens in protest. Union leaders called an emergency meeting to discuss a general strike. And a furious Mark Miller, Assembly Minority Leader, bellowed that this hasty vote was illegal, done in violation of the state's open meeting laws.
The 'Republicans rammed the bill through the Senate' thing won't gain traction after having the Fleebagger 14 hide in Illinois the past 3 weeks.
If the unions won't clear the streets or the Capitol Building so the Assembly can vote, Gov. Walker won't have a choice but to arrest the thugs who are preventing democracy from happening.
What's particularly irritating is the fact that Democrats are insisting that Republicans are hijacking democracy. That's nonsense. They've done nothing of the sort. Democrats lost the election by a substantial margin, losing the Assembly, the Senate, the governor's race, Russ Feingold's seat and David Obey's seat.
That's what I call a serious buttkicking. The Democrats got thrashed thoroughly. Still, less than 6 months later, the Fleebagger 14 skipped town in defiance of the election results. In their minds, they aren't obstructing democracy. In their minds, they're guaranteeing democracy.
That's pure spin. It's the Senate's job to debate policy and vote on legislation. They've done neither since leaving for Illinois.
I don't know how anyone can take the Fleebagger 14 seriously after they fled the state and abandoned democracy. They've put a higher priority on standing up for their special interest allies than they've put on siding with their constituents.
That's utterly shameful. They should pay a price for their misbehavior. I hope they get their pay docked the $100/Day for each day they've been missing. These Democrats made it clear that they were willing to play hardball on this issue.
They should now pay the price for hijacking democracy and for ignoring their official legislative responsibilities.
Right on cue, Jeff Rosenberg's post is the first post I've seen this morning starting with the DFL's chanting points:
Just in case you were still fooled into thinking that the Wisconsin GOP cared about the budget, we've now seen the final proof that they don't care. They were elected because of voters' frustrations over jobs and the budget, but in reality they're not interested in either problem. Their absolute priority is busting unions and reducing wages for the middle class.
People across the nation voted out Democrats because of the runaway spending in DC. They punished legislative Democrats for the sins of the Obama/Pelosi/Reid trifecta of radicals.
The people have noticed that public employee pension liabilities have skyrocketed recently. It isn't that they're adding to today' deficits as much as they're adding to tomorrow's unfunded liabilities. Mr. Rosenberg doesn't want people to know that. That's why he's focusing on the Democrats' ficticious storyline.
Posted Thursday, March 10, 2011 10:20 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 10-Mar-11 12:16 PM
Oh, so 3 weeks of notice is not enough? "Union busting" wasn't a priority until the unions gave them no other choice. "Open meetings" would have been possible if the union thugs hadn't made it impossible. Just insane, these people.
The Left's Violent Rhetoric
When Gabby Giffords was shot, lefty pundits seized on the opportunity to criticize the supposedly violent rhetoric of the TEA Party activists and other conservatives. The Tucson police chief even stepped in it. Will those lefty pundits speak out against the death threats from the left? Here's one such death threat:
From: XXXX
Sent: Wed 3/9/2011 9:18 PM
To: Sen.Kapanke; Sen.Darling; Sen.Cowles; Sen.Ellis; Sen.Fitzgerald; Sen.Galloway; Sen.Grothman; Sen.Harsdorf; Sen.Hopper; Sen.Kedzie; Sen.Lasee; Sen.Lazich; Sen.Leibham; Sen.Moulton; Sen.Olsen
Subject: Atten: Death threat!!!! Bomb!!!!
Please put your things in order because you will be killed and your familes will also be killed due to your actions in the last 8 weeks. Please explain to them that this is because if we get rid of you and your families then it will save the rights of 300,000 people and also be able to close the deficit that you have created. I hope you have a good time in hell. Read below for more information on possible scenarios in which you will die.
WE want to make this perfectly clear. Because of your actions today and in the past couple of weeks I and the group of people that are working with me have decided that we've had enough. We feel that you and the people that support the dictator have to die. We have tried many other ways of dealing with your corruption but you have taken things too far and we will not stand for it any longer. So, this is how it's going to happen: I as well as many others know where you and your family live, it's a matter of public records.
We have all planned to assult you by arriving at your house and putting a nice little bullet in your head. However, we decided that we wouldn't leave it there. We also have decided that this may not be enough to send the message to you since you are so 'high' on Koch and have decided that you are now going to single handedly make this a dictatorship instead of a demorcratic process. So we have also built several bombs that we have placed in various locations around the areas in which we know that you frequent.
This includes, your house, your car, the state capitol, and well I won't tell you all of them because that's just no fun. Since we know that you are not smart enough to figure out why this is happening to you we have decided to make it perfectly clear to you. If you and your goonies feel that it's necessary to strip the rights of 300,000 people and ruin their lives, making them unable to feed, clothe, and provide the necessities to their families and themselves then We Will 'get rid of' (in which I mean kill) you.
Please understand that this does not include the heroic Rep. Senator that risked everything to go aganist what you and your goonies wanted him to do. We feel that it's worth our lives to do this, because we would be saving the lives of 300,000 people. Please make your peace with God as soon as possible and say goodbye to your loved ones we will not wait any longer. YOU WILL DIE!!!
This is the personification of evil. It doesn't get more hate-filled than this. I hope that the despicable people who wrote this get captured, prosecuted and put in jail forever. A civilized society can't tolerate these threats of violence, especially against public servants.
Passionately debate them if you'd like. Tell them that they're crazier than a 3-eyed loon if it makes you feel better. Call them swear words if it'll help you lower your blood pressure.
Stop short of threatening violence, though.
Why would people think that eliminating parts of an employee's collective bargaining ability is justification for serial assassinations? It's bad enough that they've said this:
We have tried many other ways of dealing with your corruption but you have taken things too far and we will not stand for it any longer.
What corruption? They've passed public policy that the union thugs don't like. Are these union thugs saying that disagreeing with them on policy is a form of corruption? These people aren't just lunatics. They're criminals.
Threatening to assassinate people is a crime. PERIOD. Anyone thinking that it's ok to threaten violence if it's 'for a good cause' should be locked up for a very long time.
The next time the left talks about the need for "a new tone", I'll throw this type of language back in their face. The left's actions are hate-filled, criminal and the embodiment of evil.
Posted Thursday, March 10, 2011 2:35 PM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 10-Mar-11 04:03 PM
The left was 100% certain it was Sarah's fault because she used a bullseye target. This is far more direct and given to the lawmakers targeted.
The left should be ashamed of themselfs. The trouble is they don't know shame even though lots of them like to yell that word in public.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
