Liberals Looking For Donations to "Overcome Pennsylvania’s Voter ID Law", Meanwhile Photo ID’s Can be Obtained For Free
An e-mail from Daily Kos Campaign Manager, Chris Bowers announces ‘big news’ regarding voter ID laws in Pennsylvania. Bowers explains:
A huge coalition of 100+ labor and civil rights groups has come together to do the door knocking, phone banking and voter education necessary to make sure everyone in this must-win swing state can still cast a ballot.
At Daily Kos, we’re helping out by running online ads in Pennsylvania to sign up more than 1,000 volunteers so that this coalition has the people power it needs. Please, click here to contribute $3 to Daily Kos so that we can sign up the thousands of volunteers needed to overcome Pennsylvania’s voter ID law.
First off, if you live in Pennsylvania, please put your money back in your pocket. Instead of attempting to ‘overcome’ a law, put forth the effort to actually follow said law.
Second, why not sign up an army of volunteers to assist the citizens of Pennsylvania in obtaining their photo ID, as opposed to fighting a law that requires it?
Third, instead of donating $3 to the Daily Kos to fight an alleged effort at voter suppression, I’d like to offer better advice on how to fight that suppression … and it’s free.
Here it is – head down to your local DMV in Pennsylvania and obtain your very own photo ID for voting purposes. It is of no cost to you, and the turnaround time for obtaining such ID is estimated at 10 days. This gives one plenty of time to receive their ID to use legally in the November elections.
Voila! No more suppression. (If you still fill the need to donate, please consider a contribution to the Mental Recession as a show of appreciation for such sound advice).
The entire process is outlined on the PennDOT DMV website, which concludes with the following statement:
“… to receive your free photo ID for voting purposes. This verification process will take about ten days and does not require the payment of a fee.”
Claiming that a law requiring a person to prove the legality of their vote is voter suppression, is akin to calling laws against bank robbery a form of financial suppression.
The folks over at the Daily Kos and other liberals in general have long complained that the concept of a voter ID law would disenfranchise the poor. For example, this entry cites statements from an advocacy group that claim the Pennsylvania voter ID law hearkens back to the ‘Jim Crow’ era, and would ‘keep the working poor … away from the polls’.
What better way to come to the rescue of the working poor than by asking them for money, as opposed to showing voters how to comply with the law for free?
Just another sobering reminder that the President’s healthcare plan is a burden on people at every income level. While the administration would like to play semantics on calling it a penalty, the rest of the nation, in light of the recent Supreme Court decision, recognizes the massive tax implications of Obamacare – and now we’re learning that the effects will be economically devastating on one class in particular that the President claims to be a champion for … the poor.
The Daily Caller reports:
The penalty imposed by the Affordable Care Act on citizens who elect not to purchase health insurance will be at least $1,000 for most people, and more than $12,000 for high-income earners, according to an analysis by the nonpartisan Tax Foundation.
“We can see that this is a big tax, particularly on the poor,” writes the Tax Foundation’s William McBride. “Higher income families generally pay a higher amount, but actually a smaller percent of their income, making this a regressive tax.”
For example, the penalty for a family of four earning $20,000 will be $2,085, more than 10 percent of its income, according to the Tax Foundation — whereas a family of four making $100,000 will only have two percent of its income taken away by the government.
A regressive tax for a regressive regime. Why the War on the Poor, Mr. President?
The report then goes on to say that implementation of the individual mandate would have a negative impact on the economy, with people trying to shield their income from the new tax by “working less”.
An unemployment rate at 8.2%, an underemployment rate at nearly 15%, and the implementation of the President’s healthcare plan is going to cause people to ‘work less’ to avoid paying more.
Aren’t people already working less because of the President’s economic policies?
Obama. Isn’t. Working.
The President this weekend confirmed his view that the biggest factor contributing to wealth and success in this country is not hard work or entrepreneurial spirit – it’s the federal government.
At his speech in Roanoke, Virginia, Obama gave his vision of the formula which leads to business success in America. Not hard work. Not intelligence. No, it’s because the government was there to help you every step of the way (video below).
“There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me — because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t — look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.
If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”
Read that last line again… If you’ve got a business – you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.
Shocking, but hardly new rhetoric.
Earlier in the year, Obama echoed the same sentiments in a speech in Ann Arbor, Michigan.
President Obama tells a college audience that people don’t get rich on their own. Obama’s point that without government and paying your fair share, ultimately the successful wouldn’t be able to get where they are.
“We do not begrudge wealth in this country. I want everybody here to do well. We aspire to financial success, but we also understand that we’re not successful just by ourselves,” President Obama said at a campaign event in Ann Arbor, Michigan on Friday morning.
“We’re successful because somebody started the University of Michigan. We’re successful because somebody made an investment in all the federal research labs that created the internet. We’re successful because we have an outstanding military that costs money. We’re successful because somebody built roads and bridges. And laid broadband lines and these things didn’t just happen on their own. And if we all understand that we’ve got to pay for this stuff, it makes sense for those of us who’ve done best to do our fair share and to try to pass off that bill on to somebody else, that’s not right. That’s not who we are,” he said.
Hard work to achieve success is a foreign concept to this man, which is why he is openly encouraging people to abandon job searches for the glamorous lifestyle that is food stamps. But where did he get this attitude from?
Perhaps from his former financial adviser, Fauxcahontas … er … Sitting Bulls*** … er … Elizabeth Warren.
Remember this statement?
“I hear all this, you know, ‘Well, this is class warfare, this is whatever. No. There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own — nobody.
Former White House financial reform adviser Elizabeth Warren, who is now seeking to challenge Republican Senator Scott Brown in Massachusetts, is definitely not shy in voicing her views on class warfare — or, according to Warren, the lack thereof.
… Warren, who is perhaps best known for helping to launch the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, stated boldly that there is no such thing as class warfare and that there is “nobody in this country who got rich on his own.”
Big government birds of a feather…
Politico is reporting on a disturbing new trend, in which Democrat campaign staffers are going to Republican official’s homes with camera in tow, and posting the video on the internet.
Politicians recognize they give up a degree of privacy when they run for office.
But Democrats are testing the outer limits of that understanding with a practice that raises questions about when campaign tracking becomes something more like stalking.
While most serious campaigns on both sides use campaign trackers — staffers whose job is to record on video every public appearance and statement by an opponent — House Democrats are taking it to another level. They’re now recording video of the homes of GOP congressmen and candidates and posting the raw footage on the Internet for all to see.
That ratcheting up of the video surveillance game is unnerving Republicans who insist that even by political standards, it’s a gross invasion of privacy. Worse, they say, it creates a safety risk for members of Congress and their families at a time when they are already on edge after a deranged gunman shot former Arizona Democratic Rep. Gabrielle Giffords 18 months ago.
Yes, privacy is diminished when running for public office, but this goes beyond any acceptable level of decorum. Politico’s assertion that this somehow blurs the line is false however. There is no question that the line has been crossed – these actions are flat-out stalking.
The report even goes on to interview a congressman who was videotaped while shopping for groceries, another who had people crouching in their bushes, and another who had video of their parents home publicly posted.
The most shocking aspect of the report isn’t simply the act of stalking political opponents. While you and I might see these videos and become unnerved about their potential use by somebody with a deranged agenda, the Democrats think otherwise – they insist it is all fair game.
They say showcasing the homes — most of which are spacious and neatly maintained —underscores what will be a key avenue of attack for the party this fall: communicating that Republicans just can’t relate to economically struggling voters.
“House Republicans have spent this entire Congress trying to hide that they’re protecting benefits for millionaires and perks for themselves instead of protecting the middle class, but we won’t let them keep it secret any longer,” Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee spokesman Jesse Ferguson wrote in an email.
Democratic officials said placing the videos on the DCCC’s website and YouTube serve a useful purpose, most notably making the footage available to friendly outside groups for use in TV commercials. That way, they don’t violate laws against coordinating with those groups.
Oh the horror of a spacious and neatly maintained home!
It’s unclear how videotaping somebody grocery shopping demonstrates a willingness to protect benefits for millionaires while leaving the middle class to fend for themselves.
See? This guy doesn’t choose the generic brand of Frooty Tooties … um … 1 percenter! Koch brothers! Tax the rich!
Call it what it is … Democrats have turned to stalking in a desperate attempt to win elections.
Just a friendly reminder when you’re shelling out $4/gallon today, and probably $5/gallon during the summer – This is what President Obama wanted. He wanted a gradual increase in gas prices, and he has been successful. This statement was made in 2008.
So next time the President blames somebody for taking money out of your paycheck, remember that his policies are one of the biggest reasons that despite payroll tax cuts, the administrations fundamental changes in standard of living are making this country poorer.
Meanwhile, Rick Santorum is making the obvious rather clear. Via UPI:
Former Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania was in Ohio Monday alleging Obama’s “radical environmentalist policies” helped push gasoline prices to near record highs and threatened to derail the economic recovery.
There’s a “lack of real scientific evidence” about global warming, Santorum asserted. “Phony studies” on climate change are not “not climate science but political science.”
Santorum said Obama’s disapproval of the controversial Keystone XL pipeline system from Canada to the Gulf Coast, and alleged White House foreign-policy mismanagement in the Middle East and Persian Gulf, were also pushing oil prices upward.
This will be a huge political issue when the election rolls around. It is one of the most tangible economic killers to the average American. When it turns your stomach to go to the gas station nearly every other day, remember – this is what Obama wanted.