No, Mr. Frank Lousybum, it is people like you who don’t deserve freedoms provided by the constitution. People like you who would usurp power that isn’t yours to take, and who would deny constitutional freedoms to someone just because they disagree with you don’t deserve to hold a public office where you claim to “serve the people.” People like you sicken me.
During a pro-Planned Parenthood rally in New Jersey this week, Democratic Senator Frank Lautenberg (NJ) reportedly blasted Republicans and conservatives who are against funding the pro-abortion group. And by blasted we mean he doesn’t believe they deserve all the rights found in the Constitution:
The Tea Party Republicans in Washington claim they’re concerned about the budget balance, but it’s a disguise! It’s not true! It’s a lie! That’s not what they want. They want — they want other people not to be able to have their own opinions. They don’t deserve the freedoms that are in the Constitution! But we’ll give them to them anyway.
Sure, at the end he says “we’ll give it to them anyway.” But as Hot Air points out, that’s at best patronizing.
The comments are quickly coming under heavy fire from pro-life advocates.
“Lautenberg’s remarks and attitude were extremely inappropriate for a U.S. Senator,” Marie Tasy, the director of New Jersey Right to Life, told LifeNews.com, adding that the comment “bears repeating because it provides evidence of how Planned Parenthood and its supporters actually feel.”
“This statement is shameful coming from a U.S. Senator,” she added. “Lautenberg made these remarks surrounded by Planned Parenthood employees, supporters and state lawmakers who applauded him. These remarks are absolutely shameful and need to be exposed.”
Hmm. Imagine that. Actually simplifying the tax code so all the complex deductions go away and everyone pays the same percentage of their income. <sarcasm>No, that could NEVER work. We need to just tax the rich at 100%. THAT will fix ALL our problems.</sarcasm>
PHOENIX — A “flat tax” bill to rewrite the state individual income tax is nearing the finish line at the Legislature, setting the stage for changes that would have the Arizona’s wealthiest taxpayers paying less while nearly nine of every 10 Arizonans pay more.
The Senate Finance Committee approved the Republican-sponsored bill on a 4-2 party line vote Thursday. The House has already approved a version of the bill.
Major changes in the bill include eliminating the standard deduction, dependent exemptions and most other state deductions while flattening the current five rates into one lower rate of 2.13 percent. Current rates range from 2.59 percent to 4.454 percent depending on income levels.
The changes would be phased in over three years starting in 2013. It would not affect federal income tax paid by Arizonans.
As passed by the House, the bill would have produced an additional $50 million of annual revenue for the state. However, the Senate committee amended the bill so that it would not significantly add or subtract from total state revenue, according to an analysis by the legislative budget staff.
A legislative budget staff analysis indicated that taxpayers with federal adjusted gross incomes below $100,000 generally would pay more state income tax under the bill while those with higher incomes would save money. Taxpayers with incomes below $100,000 account for 88 percent of state income tax filers, according to the analysis.
“There are winners and losers in this proposal,” said Sen. Jack Jackson, D-Window Rock.
Republican Rep. Steve Court of Mesa said average tax increases under his bill wouldn’t exceed $200.
“There’s not going to be an excessive tax increase,” Court said.
The goal is to simplify the tax system “so the government is not incentivizing how you spend your money,” Court said. “It’s a policy bill. It’s not a revenue bill.”
MARCH 19, 2011 OBAMA: ‘Today we are part of a broad coalition. We are answering the calls of a threatened people. And we are acting in the interests of the United States and the world’…
MARCH 19, 2003 BUSH: ‘American and coalition forces are… in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger’…
MARCH 18, 2011 OBAMA: “Obama closed Friday’s remarks by saying, “I’ve taken this decision with the confidence that action is necessary, and that we will not be acting alone. Our goal is focused. Our cause is just. And our coalition is strong.”
2001, Before beginning operations in Afghanistan BUSH: “To all the men and women in our military … I say this: Your mission is defined. Your objectives are clear. Your goal is just.”
MARCH 18, 2011 OBAMA: “The United States did not seek this outcome. Our decisions have been driven by Qaddafi’s refusal to respect the rights of his people and the potential for mass murder of innocent civilians.”
Oct. 7, 2001 BUSH: “We did not ask for this mission, but we will fulfill it. … We defend not only our precious freedoms, but also the freedom of people everywhere to live and raise their children free from fear.”
————————————————————————–
When Bush got us into Iraq, the screams from the left were “BLOOD FOR OIL!” and “We have no national interest in Iraq,” and “How is Saddam Hussein a threat to us?” and “Bush is a war criminal.”
Isn’t it strange how 99.9% of the media and the left refuse to acknowledge that Obama is doing the same things or worse as Bush? Isn’t it also strange how now that Obama owns Iraq and Afghanistan, you hear very little about them anymore? Where are the daily body counts on the news? Where are the daily interviews with protesters? Where are the Cindy Sheehan’s of the world hiding now?
Remember when the price of oil climbed above $100/bbl and gasoline hit over $3 a gallon under Bush? Remember the cries of “Bush/Haliburton are evil, and it’s all their fault,” and “Bush needs to be impeached?” Now that oil is back over $100/bbl, and gas is at a national average of $4/gal, more than twice where it was when Obama took office, AND the Obama energy policy DEMONSTRABLY contributes to the increase, WHERE are the cries to impeach Obama and remove his energy czars?
I almost NEVER find myself agreeing with someone like Ralph Nader, but he is one of the few on the left who is at least giving an apples to apples comparison of Bush’s to Obama’s actions. While I think he has many facts wrong, at the end of this clip he makes THE statement that both liberals AND conservatives must come to grips with. “If Bush should have been impeached, Obama should be impeached.” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axCLQQzMtsw&feature=player_embedded
Now, when it comes to Libya, Obama can’t make up his own opinion about the deal. Doing so and displaying actual leadership on the matter would infringe on his golf, party, vacation, Andy-Warhol-ish-need-my-15-minutes-of-fame lifestyle where he loves to enjoy the perks of being president while doing none of the actual work. He has been all over the map on Libya and the unrest in the mid-east, and our European allies, as well as the muslim world, are confused to say the least. As NYT writers Helene Cooper and Steven Meyers write, Obama is basically following the women (Hillary Clinton, Samantha Power, and Susan Rice) to war. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/19/world/africa/19policy.html?_r=2&hpw Now we are involved in combat in a THIRD middle eastern country with our shrinking, crumbling, underfunded military behind a “leader” who says we are creating enemies in the middle east, and spending too much money and wasting too many lives in Iraq and Afghanistan.
What was it the two guys on the Guinness commercial said? Oh, yeah. “BRILLIANT!”
Jonathon M. Seidl
The Wide Awake Patriot 