What do the top ten most dangerous cities in America have in common with the top ten poorest cities in America? They have been under Democrat leadership.
Top Ten Most Dangerous Cities in America
1. St. Louis: 530 Democrat
2. Atlanta: 484 Democrat
3. Birmingham Alabama (tie): 380 Democrat
3. Orlando (tie): 380 Democrat
5. Detroit: 369 Democrat
6. Memphis: 361 Democrat
7. Miami: 346 Democrat
8. Baltimore: 339 Democrat
9. Kansas City, Missouri: 337 Democrat
10. Minneapolis (tie): 331 Democrat
10. Cleveland (tie): 331 Democrat
America’s Top Ten Poorest Cities
1) Detroit, MI (1st on the poverty rate list) hasn’t elected a Republican mayor since 1961;
2) Buffalo, NY (2nd) hasn’t elected one since 1954;
3) Cincinnati, OH (3rd)… …………………..since 1984;
4) Cleveland, OH (4th)… …………………..since 1989;
5) Miami, FL (5th) has never had a Republican Mayor;
6) St. Louis, MO (6th)…. ……………………since 1949;
7) El Paso, TX (7th) has never had a Republican Mayor;
8) Milwaukee, WI (8th)… ……………………since 1908;
9) Philadelphia, PA (9th)…………………….since 1952;
10) Newark, NJ (10th)… ……………………..since 1907.
Friday, February 18, 2011
Monday, February 14, 2011
No Need for Local Control of the SLPD
You’ve heard the saying. “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” There has been a recent push by certain individuals to return the St. Louis Police Department (SLPD) to local control. Putting the SLPD under City Control is the first step towards STEALING the pension, because the City needs the revenue. The reason why the St. Louis Police Department’s Pension System is solvent and profitable is because it was not under City Control. The proponents for local control give various reasons as to why the SLPD should be put back under local control such as crime statistics, corruption, accountability, taxpayer representation, but refuse to say it’s about the Police Pension Fund. They claim it has nothing to do with the Police Pension Fund; however upon closer scrutiny it is always about the money. Anyone who can not see that needs better glasses.
Carl Bearden wrote, “The City of St. Louis does not control its own police department…there is a persistent and unrelenting crime problem in St. Louis. It’s no secret that St. Louis has unfortunately been ranked as the No. 1 crime-ridden city in the country…Your community would demand that action be taken to address the problem.” How does the police department being under City control change the crime problem? What would the 28 Alderman do to change the crime problem? Having the police department under City control would have no effect on the crime problem; in fact it may cause an increase in crime.
Carl says, the citizens/taxpayers of the City of St. Louis deserve City Control over the SLPD, because the people are not being represented. The police respond when people dial 911 for the police. The SLPD is working just fine under the current system, the people are being represented and protected.
While Carl Bearden was a former state legislator it’s been said that he supported state control of the SLPD. When did Carl get this epiphany that the SLPD needs to be under local control? Was it when he became a lobbyist for Rex Sinquefield? Carl, how much are you being paid? Rex Sinquefield wants the SLPD to return to local control. Who is Rex Sinquefield? Why does he want the SLPD to be under local control? What’s in it for him?
Carl says another reason to return the SLPD to local control is corruption. There are corrupt people in the world and Carl points out the resignation of Vince Bommarito from the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department's Board of Commissioners, after Bommarito made a special request to have his nephew let out of jail after being arrested for a DWI. Bommarito was one of five members of the Police Board and I guess Carl is calling him corrupt, however using that type of logic try multiplying the possibility of corruption by 28+. Carl wrote, “… I haven’t seen pictures of aldermen or the mayor being arrested for corruption.” Maybe that’s because they do not have control of the Police Department.
Speaker of the Missouri House of Representatives, Republican Steve Tilley favors returning the SLPD to local control. Ironically, he received two hundred thousand dollars in campaign contributions from Rex Sinquefield. Could people say Rex Sinquefield is buying influence? Does anyone find this type of behavior troubling? I do.
Mayor Francis Slay said, “This is about accountability to the people of St. Louis. They elect their officials and the (police) department should be accountable to them.” When people have a complaint against the SLPD they contact the Mayor’s Office. Mr. Mayor, you do sit on the Board of Police Commissioners, therefore you do have some influence on the decisions made about the SLPD.
Furthermore, the Board of Estimate and Apportionment, (E&A) comprised of the Mayor, the Comptroller and the President of the Board of Aldermen reviews the proposed budget, holds hearings with departments and citizens whom may voice their concerns. The Board of E&A may recommend changes to the proposed budget. It then goes to the Ways and Means Committee of the Board of Aldermen, before going to before the Board of Aldermen for consideration. The Board of Aldermen may reduce the amount of any item in a budget bill, except amounts fixed by statute or ordinance obligations.
According to an article in the St. Louis Business Journal dated February 18, 2009, Chief Dan Isom of the SLPD requested a budget of $168 million for fiscal year 2010. The City of St. Louis allocated $151 million for the SLPD 2010 budget. According to the city’s records the actual budget for FY 2010 was $128,887,662 for the police and $11,813,173 for the Police Retirement System, which totals $140,700,835. Therefore, the City does have some control over the police budget. The day to day operations of the SLPD would remain the same under the current system or under local control with Chief Isom running the department.
Jeff Rainford, Chief of Staff to Mayor Slay in St Louis wrote an editorial on the 24th State’s blog criticizing the Tea Party’s opposition to local control of the SLPD. He wrote, “The third reason is the most puzzling. The Tea Party used to be against bailouts. It was against the Wall Street bailouts, the auto company bailouts, and the mortgage bailouts. But, apparently, it is willing to live with the possibility of a state bailout of the City of St. Louis. Because the police department is a state agency, it is likely that if the City of St. Louis were to become insolvent, the state would have to bail out the city.” The City of St. Louis is having financial problems. Is Rainford suggesting the City of St. Louis is becoming insolvent? The proponents of local control say it is not about the money in the Police Pension Fund, yet one would have to become suspicious of the City’s intentions when one hears comments like Rainfords’ or Alderman Quincy Troupe’s regarding St. Louis’s financial shape.
Alderman Quincy Troupe said, “I get tired of people saying we (City of St. Louis) don’t have money and we don’t have police. We may not have money and we may not have police, and that may be due to the fact of the police pension fund, because the police pension fund has all of the money. The State Legislature gives them the authority to have unfettered access to the money. Right now the greatest love on the City of St. Louis is the police pension fund. And the pension fund is over - over funded in my opinion and the benefits are unbelievable and unrealistic and exceeds anything in the Metropolitan St. Lois area. So how you gonna sit and tell me we don’t have any money for crime prevention, but the State makes us pay unrealistic numbers to the police pension fund.”
When Troupe said … “because the police pension fund has all of the money”… “gives them the authority to have unfettered access to the money”… “the greatest love on the City of St. Louis is the police pension fund.” … “the benefits are unbelievable and unrealistic”…sounds to me like he wants to have control over the money to use as he sees fit.
The proponents of local control say that experts have testified that the City could not raid the Police Pension Fund; it is written in the bill to prevent that from happening. It depends on what side of the argument one takes and who is paying them, when it comes to expert testimony. Laws can be changed. There is a process in gaining access to the Police Pension Fund and the first step is City Control. It is always about the money! The St. Louis Police Departments’ Pension System is solvent and profitable, because it was not under City Control and it should not be penalized for good management. The SLPD is working just fine under the current system, the people are being represented and protected. There is no need for it to be put under local control.
Saturday, February 5, 2011
Say No to Claire in 2012
The 2008 Democratic convention in Denver generated $266 million in regional economic benefit and brought in 50000 people according to Denver officials. Even though bringing the Democrat National Convention to St. Louis would be an economic boom to the region Senator Claire McCaskill lobbied against bringing the convention here, because it would hurt her reelection effort. It is one thing to sit silently by and hope the Convention does not come to St. Louis, because of the perceived threat that it may hurt your campaign, but it is reprehensible as a sitting Senator to actively lobby against the Convention, which brings an economic benefit to the region. Of course, Claire denies that she lobbied against bringing the DNC Convention to St. Louis.
Nevertheless Jeff Zeleny of the New York Times contradicts McCaskill’s denial and reported the following: “Ms. McCaskill, one of the president’s closest friends in the Senate, took her concerns directly to the White House, according to party leaders familiar with the selection process. She argued that her re-election could be complicated if the convention was held in St. Louis, because the Democratic gathering will almost certainly attract protesters and compete for fund-raising.”
Who are we to believe? Should you believe Claire McCaskill or a New York Times reporter? A tough call, however, if you look into Claire’s past you may give the benefit of the doubt to the reporter. While investigating abuses at nursing homes, Claire McCaskill met a rich owner of one, dropped that investigation and eventually married him.
Claire is out for Claire. She will do and say anything to stay in power. She will take both sides of an issue for political expediency, like she did with Obamacare. She voted for it when they needed the sixty votes, then voted against it when only a simple majority was needed for passage.
As an elected official, you are supposed to be a representative for your constituents and do what is in the best interests of the people. Lobbying against a convention that would benefit the region economically is not in the best interests of the people. The citizens of Missouri do not need someone like Claire McCaskill, who puts her self interests ahead of the people to be their representative in the United States Senate, anymore. People of Missouri wake up and FIRE Claire McCaskill in 2012.
Nevertheless Jeff Zeleny of the New York Times contradicts McCaskill’s denial and reported the following: “Ms. McCaskill, one of the president’s closest friends in the Senate, took her concerns directly to the White House, according to party leaders familiar with the selection process. She argued that her re-election could be complicated if the convention was held in St. Louis, because the Democratic gathering will almost certainly attract protesters and compete for fund-raising.”
Who are we to believe? Should you believe Claire McCaskill or a New York Times reporter? A tough call, however, if you look into Claire’s past you may give the benefit of the doubt to the reporter. While investigating abuses at nursing homes, Claire McCaskill met a rich owner of one, dropped that investigation and eventually married him.
Claire is out for Claire. She will do and say anything to stay in power. She will take both sides of an issue for political expediency, like she did with Obamacare. She voted for it when they needed the sixty votes, then voted against it when only a simple majority was needed for passage.
As an elected official, you are supposed to be a representative for your constituents and do what is in the best interests of the people. Lobbying against a convention that would benefit the region economically is not in the best interests of the people. The citizens of Missouri do not need someone like Claire McCaskill, who puts her self interests ahead of the people to be their representative in the United States Senate, anymore. People of Missouri wake up and FIRE Claire McCaskill in 2012.
Friday, February 4, 2011
It’s Not a Money Grab?
In an article about red light cameras in the February 3, 2011 issue of the Leader newspaper, Arnold Ward 2 Councilman Jim Edwards said he wants the city to hire a collection agency to try to recover approximately $410,830 in unpaid red-light camera ticket charges. Arnold City Administrator Matt Unrein said it is not economically feasible because the collection agency wants 40% of the money collected and it would all come out of Arnold’s share. Edwards said he would continue to pursue the collection effort because anything is better than nothing. He then said people need to realize it’s going to hurt them if they don’t pay it. It will go on their credit and they won’t be able to get a loan. I thought it wasn’t about the money, it was about safety. I also thought in this country you were presumed innocent until proven guilty.
When Jay Nixon was the Attorney General he questioned the legality of the cameras. He stated in order to run a red light it takes a vehicle and a person. The method they’ve established in this area deals only with the machine. He also stated that State Law doesn’t allow the use of automated enforcement. At that time City Attorney Bob Sweeney disagreed. He believes the evidence would be sufficient to make the tickets hold up in court. If a vehicle were registered to more than one person the ticket would go to whoever’s name appears first on the title. If that person can present indisputable proof that he or she was not driving it would go to the second person or be dropped. People have a Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate themselves. It is not up to the people to present indisputable proof they were not driving, it is up to the government to prove the individual did the violation.
According to the article the prior three-member Jefferson County Executive Board began working on the installation of more red-light cameras in Jefferson County at the request of Sheriff Glenn Boyer. This board consisting of Chuck Banks, Pat Lamping and Ed Kemp wanted to make sure none of the money would go into the county general fund to alleviate the impression that the red-light cameras are a money grab. Kemp proposed giving 30% to the Jeffco Express bus service 50% to the Sheriff’s Office and 20% to the Municipal Courts. Kemp, who was against the red-light cameras in the beginning stated, “The biggest complaint I heard was that this is a money grab. I thought giving the money to the sheriff and public transportation would alleviate some of those thoughts.” Wwhaaaat? The reason for the cameras is to produce revenue, i.e. “a money grab,” and by distributing the money to the Sheriff’s Department and a bus service does not change that fact. It is all about the money.
Sheriff Boyer wants the money to hire additional deputies. Dennis Murphy, the project coordinator for Jeffco Express wanted the money for the fledgling bus service. Murphy was promised the money by the prior board and was told, “We really want to overcome this perception of a money grab, that’s why we want to give it to you.” Sheriff Boyer and Dennis Murphy already started to count and spend the money, so naturally they support red-light cameras. But wait, I thought the reason for the red-light cameras was about SAFETY and not the money. Let’s just say that it worked. People drive more safely and responsibly and no longer run the red lights. Now, where are Sheriff Boyer and Dennis Murphy going to get the revenue for the deputies and the bus service?
The electric signal and or the cameras will not protect you or prevent an accident from happening. It’s the other vehicles that will hurt you. If they are truly concerned about safety and minimizing accidents at electric signals, they should discuss physics. In physics an object that is in motion takes time to come to a stop; wherein an object that is stopped is not in motion and takes no time to stop. People need to stop thinking they are at a drag strip, watching for the lights to turn green and immediately giving it the gas crossing through the intersection. People need to pay more attention to the other vehicles and make sure they are stopping before proceeding through the intersection. This would reduce the amount of accidents at electric signals. The goal should be to prevent the accidents from happening. The best way to do that would be to educate people into driving defensively. That is why I support the new Jefferson County Council when they voted 6-0 to repeal the red-light camera ordinance that was approved in September by the former county administration. The proponent’s original intent of red-light cameras supposedly was to reduce accidents at the signals; however in reality red-light cameras are about the money not safety!
When Jay Nixon was the Attorney General he questioned the legality of the cameras. He stated in order to run a red light it takes a vehicle and a person. The method they’ve established in this area deals only with the machine. He also stated that State Law doesn’t allow the use of automated enforcement. At that time City Attorney Bob Sweeney disagreed. He believes the evidence would be sufficient to make the tickets hold up in court. If a vehicle were registered to more than one person the ticket would go to whoever’s name appears first on the title. If that person can present indisputable proof that he or she was not driving it would go to the second person or be dropped. People have a Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate themselves. It is not up to the people to present indisputable proof they were not driving, it is up to the government to prove the individual did the violation.
According to the article the prior three-member Jefferson County Executive Board began working on the installation of more red-light cameras in Jefferson County at the request of Sheriff Glenn Boyer. This board consisting of Chuck Banks, Pat Lamping and Ed Kemp wanted to make sure none of the money would go into the county general fund to alleviate the impression that the red-light cameras are a money grab. Kemp proposed giving 30% to the Jeffco Express bus service 50% to the Sheriff’s Office and 20% to the Municipal Courts. Kemp, who was against the red-light cameras in the beginning stated, “The biggest complaint I heard was that this is a money grab. I thought giving the money to the sheriff and public transportation would alleviate some of those thoughts.” Wwhaaaat? The reason for the cameras is to produce revenue, i.e. “a money grab,” and by distributing the money to the Sheriff’s Department and a bus service does not change that fact. It is all about the money.
Sheriff Boyer wants the money to hire additional deputies. Dennis Murphy, the project coordinator for Jeffco Express wanted the money for the fledgling bus service. Murphy was promised the money by the prior board and was told, “We really want to overcome this perception of a money grab, that’s why we want to give it to you.” Sheriff Boyer and Dennis Murphy already started to count and spend the money, so naturally they support red-light cameras. But wait, I thought the reason for the red-light cameras was about SAFETY and not the money. Let’s just say that it worked. People drive more safely and responsibly and no longer run the red lights. Now, where are Sheriff Boyer and Dennis Murphy going to get the revenue for the deputies and the bus service?
The electric signal and or the cameras will not protect you or prevent an accident from happening. It’s the other vehicles that will hurt you. If they are truly concerned about safety and minimizing accidents at electric signals, they should discuss physics. In physics an object that is in motion takes time to come to a stop; wherein an object that is stopped is not in motion and takes no time to stop. People need to stop thinking they are at a drag strip, watching for the lights to turn green and immediately giving it the gas crossing through the intersection. People need to pay more attention to the other vehicles and make sure they are stopping before proceeding through the intersection. This would reduce the amount of accidents at electric signals. The goal should be to prevent the accidents from happening. The best way to do that would be to educate people into driving defensively. That is why I support the new Jefferson County Council when they voted 6-0 to repeal the red-light camera ordinance that was approved in September by the former county administration. The proponent’s original intent of red-light cameras supposedly was to reduce accidents at the signals; however in reality red-light cameras are about the money not safety!
Thursday, February 3, 2011
Response to "Leader" Editorial on Ed Martin
Pat Martin,
The following letter is my response to your editorial about Ed Martin posted in the Leader, January 27, 2011. What I said is backed up by facts, but I did not send them to you because I did not want to pay the extra postage. Therefore, you will have to look them up yourself. It is your paper and you will decide whether to print the letter or not. If you decide not to print the letter I will post it on the other credible sites.
Sincerely,
Greg Zotta
Pat Martin, you still can not get over the results of the November election. After a majority of your endorsements lost you discovered that you are not a “King maker,” and apparently took exception to that with your subsequent biased editorials and “news” reports.
Pat you wrote, “…It’s hard to make a Martin shut up…the only way to accomplish the deed with a Martin was to cut off his head and hide it.” Cut off the head of Ed Martin? In this era of “civility,” what would your idol Barack Hussein Obama say about that?
Pat you wrote, “…Ed has kept an unusually high profile for a guy who lost an election.” It seems you are concerned with Ed Martin still seeking a political career by possibly running against Claire McCaskill for the US Senate. Ed Martin would not be the first or only candidate to lose an election and then run again. Abraham Lincoln lost several elections before winning and eventually becoming President. Ronald Reagan lost some elections before becoming one of the greatest Presidents ever. Even Claire McCaskill did it. So Pat, why the concern with Ed wanting to run again? Is it because of your ideology you do not want to see a conservative in office?
Ed lost a very close race and was leading most of the night until the ballots came in from the City of St. Louis at the end of the night. Question, why is the vote tally from St. Louis the last to come in? Makes you wonder if they are waiting to the end to see how many votes they need. FYI, there has been voter fraud in St. Louis in the past. Does it not concern you that in every statewide election St. Louis City’s vote tallies are the last to be counted, even though all of the polls across the state close at the same time?
You snipe that Ed attended the Jefferson County Council inauguration and his friends surrounded him in the lobby after the event. Don’t you have any friends Pat? Are you jealous? The Jefferson County Council inauguration was a historic event and many of the members are Ed’s friends, so why wouldn’t he be there? Then again, many of the new members were not endorsed by you.
You constantly bring up and are fixated on the email controversy regarding Ed Martin. Ed has addressed and answered the questions regarding the situation, but apparently his answers are not up to your expectations. Yet, you never mention Russ Carnahan helping his brother receive over a hundred million taxpayers’ dollars for a wind farm. Nor do you mention Claire McCaskill who was investigating abuses at nursing homes until she met a rich owner of one and eventually married him.
Pat Martin, you are a poor excuse of a journalist and you fail at your responsibility of being the watchdog over government afforded to you under the First Amendment of the Constitution. It is a good thing there are alternative methods and more credible sites to get the TRUTH to the people, instead of relying on your biased paper the “Leader.”
The following letter is my response to your editorial about Ed Martin posted in the Leader, January 27, 2011. What I said is backed up by facts, but I did not send them to you because I did not want to pay the extra postage. Therefore, you will have to look them up yourself. It is your paper and you will decide whether to print the letter or not. If you decide not to print the letter I will post it on the other credible sites.
Sincerely,
Greg Zotta
Pat Martin, you still can not get over the results of the November election. After a majority of your endorsements lost you discovered that you are not a “King maker,” and apparently took exception to that with your subsequent biased editorials and “news” reports.
Pat you wrote, “…It’s hard to make a Martin shut up…the only way to accomplish the deed with a Martin was to cut off his head and hide it.” Cut off the head of Ed Martin? In this era of “civility,” what would your idol Barack Hussein Obama say about that?
Pat you wrote, “…Ed has kept an unusually high profile for a guy who lost an election.” It seems you are concerned with Ed Martin still seeking a political career by possibly running against Claire McCaskill for the US Senate. Ed Martin would not be the first or only candidate to lose an election and then run again. Abraham Lincoln lost several elections before winning and eventually becoming President. Ronald Reagan lost some elections before becoming one of the greatest Presidents ever. Even Claire McCaskill did it. So Pat, why the concern with Ed wanting to run again? Is it because of your ideology you do not want to see a conservative in office?
Ed lost a very close race and was leading most of the night until the ballots came in from the City of St. Louis at the end of the night. Question, why is the vote tally from St. Louis the last to come in? Makes you wonder if they are waiting to the end to see how many votes they need. FYI, there has been voter fraud in St. Louis in the past. Does it not concern you that in every statewide election St. Louis City’s vote tallies are the last to be counted, even though all of the polls across the state close at the same time?
You snipe that Ed attended the Jefferson County Council inauguration and his friends surrounded him in the lobby after the event. Don’t you have any friends Pat? Are you jealous? The Jefferson County Council inauguration was a historic event and many of the members are Ed’s friends, so why wouldn’t he be there? Then again, many of the new members were not endorsed by you.
You constantly bring up and are fixated on the email controversy regarding Ed Martin. Ed has addressed and answered the questions regarding the situation, but apparently his answers are not up to your expectations. Yet, you never mention Russ Carnahan helping his brother receive over a hundred million taxpayers’ dollars for a wind farm. Nor do you mention Claire McCaskill who was investigating abuses at nursing homes until she met a rich owner of one and eventually married him.
Pat Martin, you are a poor excuse of a journalist and you fail at your responsibility of being the watchdog over government afforded to you under the First Amendment of the Constitution. It is a good thing there are alternative methods and more credible sites to get the TRUTH to the people, instead of relying on your biased paper the “Leader.”
Saturday, January 15, 2011
A Farce of a Memorial Service
The Memorial was a pep rally, very disrespectful. I would imagine most of the audience was college children, who are being indoctrinated by libs. This is the MTV generation, the Jersey Shore Generation and obviously they have not been taught how to act at a memorial service. Most of these kids probably have been brainwashed by Obama in his mantra of Hope and Change, unfortunately, not asking what kind of change.
Civility is code word for censorship. Since the election the Statists have been talking about compromise and getting along, which means do what we want and say. That's not what the people voted for. The Obamamaniacs claimed it was Obama's best speech ever. Nevertheless, President Ronald Reagan made a more sincere speech about the Challenger Tragedy.
The Memorial/Pep Rally was staged. What was up with the tee shirts? I have never been to a Memorial service where they gave out Tee-shirts. The speech and shirts are from a 2008 Obama Blog Organizing for America.What I found peculiar is Janet Napolitano and Eric Holder reading from scripture. Was there no priest available? What was the point of them reading, especially since Holder is suing Arizona regarding border security, under the direction of Barack Hussein Obama.Obama lied about Gabby opening her eyes for the first time. I believe most of the "show" was about OPTICS.They wanted to make this Obama's moment, instead of memorializing the dead.Rush said it best today when he said Obama put the ME in memorial.
The Statists objective is to silence the Truth Tellers. The climate of angst and mistrust of the Government has been brought on by Barack Hussein Obama, the Statists, and their policies. Obama is a polarizing and divisive figure, who uses class envy and race-baiting to divide the people. Therefore, if anything, you may want to look at Obama’s rhetoric and policies as having something to do with this shooting. And if he wants to talk about civility, may I suggest to him LEAD BY EXAMPLE.
Obama is not our friend and needs to be defeated in 2012
Civility is code word for censorship. Since the election the Statists have been talking about compromise and getting along, which means do what we want and say. That's not what the people voted for. The Obamamaniacs claimed it was Obama's best speech ever. Nevertheless, President Ronald Reagan made a more sincere speech about the Challenger Tragedy.
The Memorial/Pep Rally was staged. What was up with the tee shirts? I have never been to a Memorial service where they gave out Tee-shirts. The speech and shirts are from a 2008 Obama Blog Organizing for America.What I found peculiar is Janet Napolitano and Eric Holder reading from scripture. Was there no priest available? What was the point of them reading, especially since Holder is suing Arizona regarding border security, under the direction of Barack Hussein Obama.Obama lied about Gabby opening her eyes for the first time. I believe most of the "show" was about OPTICS.They wanted to make this Obama's moment, instead of memorializing the dead.Rush said it best today when he said Obama put the ME in memorial.
The Statists objective is to silence the Truth Tellers. The climate of angst and mistrust of the Government has been brought on by Barack Hussein Obama, the Statists, and their policies. Obama is a polarizing and divisive figure, who uses class envy and race-baiting to divide the people. Therefore, if anything, you may want to look at Obama’s rhetoric and policies as having something to do with this shooting. And if he wants to talk about civility, may I suggest to him LEAD BY EXAMPLE.
Obama is not our friend and needs to be defeated in 2012
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Hypocrisy in Arizona Shooting
November 4th, 2010, Democrat pollster Mark Penn was on MSNBC, Hardball with Chris Matthews , and they talked about what Obama needed to help turn his poll numbers around. Penn stated, “ President Clinton reconnected through Oklahoma …and the president right now is seen as removed, and it wasn't until that speech that he reclicked with the American public. Obama needs a similar kind of event.” Is the Arizona shooting Obama's event?
Naturally, when something like this shooting occurs the Tea-Party is going to be the first to be blamed by the Statists and the so called Main-Stream Media. The Statists are also blaming Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh. When a disgruntled person flew his plane into the IRS building the Tea-Party was the first to be blamed. When Russ Carnahan’s office was firebombed the Statists and the Main-Stream Media were so hoping it was a Tea-Party member. I prefer to wait till the facts of the case come out to lay blame.
Nevertheless, there is angst in this country, a mistrust of government brought on by Barack Hussein Obama, the Statists and their policies of control and the loss of freedom on the people. The Statists pit one group of Americans against another, using class envy and race-baiting. Remember, the Tea-Party came about because of an overreaching Government.
There will be calls for more Gun Control and limiting speech, as well as more security for the politicians. There will be calls to "tone down the rhetoric" coming from Conservatives and the Tea Party Patriots in an attempt to silence them. However, will the MSM and the Statists call for a change in tone themselves? The Mainstream Media and the Statists are blaming the shooting on the vitriolic statements from Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and the Tea Party.It's ironic, they fail to mention the rhetoric coming from Barack Hussein Obama. The following statements were made by Obama: “They Bring a Knife…We Bring a Gun”
Obama to His Followers: “Get in Their Faces!”
Obama on ACORN Mobs: “I don’t want to quell anger. I think people are right to be angry! I’m angry!”
Obama to His Mercenary Army: “Hit Back Twice as hard.
Obama on the private sector: “We talk to these folks … so I know whose ass to kick.”
Obama to voters: “Republican victory would mean hand to hand combat.”
Obama to lib supporters: “It’s time to fight for it.”
Obama to Latino supporters: “Punish your enemies.”
Obama to Democrats: “I’m itching for a fight.”
Other irresponsible statements made by Political Figures based on Opinions not Facts are as follows: Immediately after the Arizona shooting Sheriff Clarence W. Dupnik, without knowing the facts gave his opinion blaming talk radio and the vitriolic political climate of today for it. He stated “But again I’d just like to say that when you look at unbalanced people, how they respond to the vitriol that comes out of certain people’s mouths about tearing down the government, the anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this country is getting to be outrageous. And, unfortunately, Arizona I believe has become sort of the capital. We have become the Mecca for prejudice and bigotry.”
Diane Sawyer asked Sheriff Dupnik if he thought it was appropriate to theorize and draw conclusions without any facts and he replied, “Well that’s my opinion, people can have their own opinion.” Dupnik is a political figure, therefore when he makes a statement it should be based on facts.
Some other political figures who made asinine statements without knowing the facts are Mayor (King) Michael Bloomberg regarding the Times Square bomber he said, “If I had to guess, twenty five cents, this would be exactly that,” Bloomberg said. “Homegrown maybe a mentally deranged person or someone with a political agenda that doesn’t like the health care bill or something. It could be anything.”
Another one would be President Barack Hussein Obama regarding the Cambridge Police.
President Obama addressed the arrest of Harvard scholar Henry Louis Gates Jr. at his Cambridge home during a news conference saying that "anyone would be angry" and "the Cambridge police acted stupidly."
Obama prefaced his reply by saying that "I might be a little biased here" because "Skip Gates" is a friend, and by acknowledging that "I don't know all the facts."
He then recited what has been reported, and joked that if he tried to jimmy the lock at his current residence -- the White House -- "I'd get shot."
"Now, I don't know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played in that. But I think it's fair to say, number one, any of us would be pretty angry; number two, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home; and, number three, what I think we know separate and apart from this incident is that there's a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately. That's just a fact."
Suggestion, if you are in a position of POWER, get the facts first before making a statement.
Naturally, when something like this shooting occurs the Tea-Party is going to be the first to be blamed by the Statists and the so called Main-Stream Media. The Statists are also blaming Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh. When a disgruntled person flew his plane into the IRS building the Tea-Party was the first to be blamed. When Russ Carnahan’s office was firebombed the Statists and the Main-Stream Media were so hoping it was a Tea-Party member. I prefer to wait till the facts of the case come out to lay blame.
Nevertheless, there is angst in this country, a mistrust of government brought on by Barack Hussein Obama, the Statists and their policies of control and the loss of freedom on the people. The Statists pit one group of Americans against another, using class envy and race-baiting. Remember, the Tea-Party came about because of an overreaching Government.
There will be calls for more Gun Control and limiting speech, as well as more security for the politicians. There will be calls to "tone down the rhetoric" coming from Conservatives and the Tea Party Patriots in an attempt to silence them. However, will the MSM and the Statists call for a change in tone themselves? The Mainstream Media and the Statists are blaming the shooting on the vitriolic statements from Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and the Tea Party.It's ironic, they fail to mention the rhetoric coming from Barack Hussein Obama. The following statements were made by Obama: “They Bring a Knife…We Bring a Gun”
Obama to His Followers: “Get in Their Faces!”
Obama on ACORN Mobs: “I don’t want to quell anger. I think people are right to be angry! I’m angry!”
Obama to His Mercenary Army: “Hit Back Twice as hard.
Obama on the private sector: “We talk to these folks … so I know whose ass to kick.”
Obama to voters: “Republican victory would mean hand to hand combat.”
Obama to lib supporters: “It’s time to fight for it.”
Obama to Latino supporters: “Punish your enemies.”
Obama to Democrats: “I’m itching for a fight.”
Other irresponsible statements made by Political Figures based on Opinions not Facts are as follows: Immediately after the Arizona shooting Sheriff Clarence W. Dupnik, without knowing the facts gave his opinion blaming talk radio and the vitriolic political climate of today for it. He stated “But again I’d just like to say that when you look at unbalanced people, how they respond to the vitriol that comes out of certain people’s mouths about tearing down the government, the anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this country is getting to be outrageous. And, unfortunately, Arizona I believe has become sort of the capital. We have become the Mecca for prejudice and bigotry.”
Diane Sawyer asked Sheriff Dupnik if he thought it was appropriate to theorize and draw conclusions without any facts and he replied, “Well that’s my opinion, people can have their own opinion.” Dupnik is a political figure, therefore when he makes a statement it should be based on facts.
Some other political figures who made asinine statements without knowing the facts are Mayor (King) Michael Bloomberg regarding the Times Square bomber he said, “If I had to guess, twenty five cents, this would be exactly that,” Bloomberg said. “Homegrown maybe a mentally deranged person or someone with a political agenda that doesn’t like the health care bill or something. It could be anything.”
Another one would be President Barack Hussein Obama regarding the Cambridge Police.
President Obama addressed the arrest of Harvard scholar Henry Louis Gates Jr. at his Cambridge home during a news conference saying that "anyone would be angry" and "the Cambridge police acted stupidly."
Obama prefaced his reply by saying that "I might be a little biased here" because "Skip Gates" is a friend, and by acknowledging that "I don't know all the facts."
He then recited what has been reported, and joked that if he tried to jimmy the lock at his current residence -- the White House -- "I'd get shot."
"Now, I don't know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played in that. But I think it's fair to say, number one, any of us would be pretty angry; number two, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home; and, number three, what I think we know separate and apart from this incident is that there's a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately. That's just a fact."
Suggestion, if you are in a position of POWER, get the facts first before making a statement.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
