Calling For A National Protest
Fellow Patriots,
American Majority is calling for a national demonstration of support for Scott Walker and leaders across the country who have the courage to fight the public sector union bosses - on Wednesday, February 23rd. This is the moment and opportunity for the tea partiers, and those who want limited government and support the free market, to stand firm against the greed and dangerous statist philosophy of the public sector unions. Help us fight this battle and win for America by doing one or more of the below:
1. A public show of support: a rally in your city showing your support for Governor Walker, the state legislators, and other governors and state legislators who want to do the right thing. Governor Walker is demonstrating responsible government in an era where government has been wasteful and irresponsible. He and other courageous leaders must understand that we completely support them in their decisions.
2. If you cannot conduct a rally, consider holding a candlelight vigil or march that night. Many will be offering up speeches, song, and prayers on behalf of our nation and its future.
3. If you are unable to attend an event in your area, please consider writing an op-ed or blog post concerning the issue. Every voice matters and deserves to be heard.
4. Lastly, we are asking that everyone update their Facebook statuses and tweet their support of Governor Walker's efforts. We must show our politicians that we can make just as much noise when they are doing the right things as well.
Now is the time to fight.
Ned Ryun
President
American Majority
~~
Game on.
Game on.
~~~
34 comments:
"I stand with Governor Scott Walker. Do you?"
No.
I knew it must be you!
I do appreciate your faithfulness, Jim (and your predictability).
It certainly shouldn't be hard to predict that answer.
:-)
"It certainly shouldn't be hard to predict that answer."
Ah! Finally we have the transparency BHO preened about.
Tee hee. Don't give these union-supporting waterheads the time of day. We are broke. The last people that need to be worrying about concessions is a group the governor already said had secure jobs. Instead, they stay out of the classroom even longer and try to endanger their jobs while we've seen that job performance is sub-par to say the least.
"We are broke." Because of a deep recession, not because of unions.
And also due to the recession, we have unemployment, so where is the money coming from that the greedy unions want? Much of the things these public employees in most of these states want is unsustainable. You know it. You go ahead and pay one person's pension out of pocket if you bleed for them so much. But nooooo, that's probably not the way it works in your mind. You think anyone with more than a $250K salary should pay for them.
Your time is coming, Jim. I hope you're brave enough to stand by your words.
BPB~ Glad to see you again! Yep. I saw this morning, "The privileged are protesting in WI..." Privileged, coddled, propped-up by tax payers - indeed. Why should the People have to work their a$$es off in the private sector, pay large %'s of their health care premiums (if not ALL of it, like my family), then turn right around & pay for someone ELSE's?? Then to have those people whine & moan about having to pay 12% of their premiums (something like $700 per year!!!) is just disgusting! My husband said last night, "I pay more than $700 per month!"
No, Jim. We're broke because our GOVERNMENT will NOT stop spending!! And on BORROWED $$. AND still wants to spend ga-zillions MORE to give everybody "free" health care - even illegals.
You & I would be in a debtor's prison if we acted like Congress.
Heaven help us.
"AND still wants to spend ga-zillions MORE to give everybody "free" health care - even illegals. "
Susannah, really? This sentence is false in at least 4 places. I KNOW you are better informed than to really believe that.
Really... I'll play this game. Show where this is wrong, outside of the gazillion part.
The government did borrow and spend. It's unsustainable, Jim. You know it's the truth. You can't do a sub-par job and expect to make more than the average person paying you. It wouldn't work were a liberal media and a previously liberal/progressive several tier government involved.
Blue:
Part the first: PPACA does not give free health care to everybody. PPACA does not give free health care to illegals. PPACA reduces the deficit by over a trillion dollars over 20 years.
Part the second: There isn't a person in the country who thinks we can continue to spend more that we take in indefinitely. The rest of your paragraph makes no sense. What's a "sub par" job? And who says employees "should" make more than their employers. The last sentence...what?
A sub-par job is what's going on in WI public schools.
Show me figures proving that the PPACA saves any money.
CBO
http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/01/does-health-care-reform-reduce-deficit-no-its-tax-increases-do
CBO, yadda, yadda, yadda...whatever. Fiscal gymnastics...
"Without the $770 billion in tax increases contained in Obamacare, there is no way to claim that the measure reduces the deficit. At its heart, the debate over the deficit is a conversation about whether we should have higher taxes in order to bring the deficit down."
How about CUT SPENDING!? Now, there's a thought...
Well, the article I lined pointed out that all of this predicated on raising taxes.
And Jim, I still am not sure what I was trying to say in that sentence, must have been the cough syrup.
"Without the $770 billion in tax increases contained in Obamacare, there is no way to claim that the measure reduces the deficit."
You mean PPACA raises money to pay for itself? What a concept!
So I take it we can send the bill to you? Seriously, where do we get that money from...please say the wealthy. It would make the rest of the argument perfect.
Yes, I will probably pay a little more in taxes. You, probably not.
I don't have a problem with that. To pay a few dollars more to help some people get access to care and reduce the deficit, sure. My civic duty.
Really, I wont? Explain please.
Oh, nevermind. I see it all now. The passive-aggressive comments...just another elitist. You aren't one of the wealthy. If you were and you felt it was your civic duty to pay for the rest of society, you would be poor.
Also, how are you going to reduce the deficit if the democrats keep making more and more social programs and the empty suit in charge wants to make high-speed rail a priority in a recession? More taxes on top of those taxes? Where is the money coming from?
"Explain please."
OK. I'm a part of a society. You, not so much. How can I tell?
"civic duty to pay for the rest of society"
I'm not "paying for the rest of society." I'm contributing my part because God has blessed me.
"Elitist"? A meaningless word used as a slur to hang on people with whom you disagree.
How are we going to reduce the deficit if Republicans reduce revenues and start expensive, unnecessary wars?
"Where is the money coming from?" Certainly not from tax cuts. Putting people to work building things has a multiplier effect over the entire economy. There is no possible way to significantly reduce the deficit by simply cutting expenses. You have to grow the economy.
You're an idiot. Seriously, Sus, did you know this dude was this way?
I'm not a part of society and I'm not wealthy because I don't consider it a civic duty?
You know nothing about me. But you've chosen to take the easy route out by attacking me personally.
Ciao.
Wow, and Susannah you thought I was thin-skinned. But it's OK because I'm "an idiot."
"I'm not wealthy because I don't consider it a civic duty? "
To quote my favorite Vulcan, "Your logic is like a bouquet of dead flowers...that smells bad."
You are thin-skinned. Else you wouldn't have an ill-hidden personal attack on me.
Passive-aggressives are usually unhappy people. You are going a long way toward proving that.
Ill-hidden personal attack? Wow. Fascinating.
Gentlemen: I'll not comment on the arguing match you've engaged in, but a few things I must speak on:
"Yes, I will probably pay a little more in taxes. You, probably not."
You cannot possibly know this about BPB. Why the dig?
"I don't have a problem with that."
I do.
"To pay a few dollars more to help some people get access to care and reduce the deficit, sure."
Remember that fable about the wise squirrel who stores up his 'resources' while the silly rabbit laughs & romps about in the sunshine? When winter comes, the wise squirrel has plenty to eat, & the foolish rabbit whines about having nothing.
"My civic duty."
NO!! Your "Civic Duty" is to be a WISE SQUIRREL! And to INSIST that your Government be one as well!
I'm not 'paying for the rest of society.' "
Of course you are; and then some.
"I'm contributing my part because God has blessed me."
NO! If you're voluntarily tithing to a CHURCH/charity out of gratitude for God's bounty to you, then you're contributing out of God's blessings upon your life.
To equate confiscatory taxation with "civic duty," and 'Christian/godly charity' is twisted & manipulative use of God's blessings, toward political ends. You're not getting away with that here, Jim. Sorry. I'm honestly insulted that you tried.
But hey, the Left is used to wheedling away at any perceived chink in the armor. I guess you couldn't help it. Tsk, tsk, Jim.
I just had a problem with the fallacy that I must not have anything because I am not willing to give up all that I own. That was the underlying message. I forget sometimes that it's futile to argue with someone agenda driven. Sorry for the argument.
To be fair, it was a very ill-hidden piece of contempt, but I forgive him.
Wow, thanks for being "fair and balanced", Susannah. :-)
"it's futile to argue with someone agenda driven."
The most accurate thing I think I've read from you on this blog, Blue. Totally agree.
I'm surprised that Blue was so sensitive to my supposition about him. I could be wrong, but perhaps I hit a nerve. But then according to him, I'm an "idiot".
My perceived "dig" at Blue was not based on any judgment of his earning power or whatever, but on my feeling that the people who seem to protest the MOST about taxes for incomes above $250,000 are people who aren't subject to them. These seem to be the folks that think they are better off because the wealth in this country is being redistributed to the very wealthiest Americans.
I thought it was the ant and the grasshopper. Regardless, apparently the vast majority of YOUR fellow Americans are grasshoppers (squirrels). Not mine.
"confiscatory taxation"?
Taxes are the lowest they have been since the 1950s.
"I'm honestly insulted that you tried."
I'm disappointed that's how you interpret what I said. God has blessed me in many ways. The fact that I don't consider taxation as theft has nothing to do with any "twisted" or "manipulative" use of God's blessings.
"not willing to give up all that I own."
?
lol, I'm done. You're a provocateur.
I do see one family that's wealthy reaping the benefits of everyone else...the Obama family. They constantly have fancy parties and take vacations constantly while telling others what to do.
Like no other president in history, right?
"They constantly have fancy parties and take vacations constantly while telling others what to do." Hip-hop and bling, right?
Clearly you have only a vague relationship with reality.
Anon~ When you bother to leave your name, I'll bother to view your links.
Post a Comment