Looks like the angry nazi racist mob is retaining their sense of humor

Ummm….who exactly is guilty of astroturfing? Hmmmm?

Looks like the Democrats and union thugs, that’s who.

On the lighter side, the protesters who showed up for the meeting with Maryland Senator Ben Cardin provided some laughs with their shouted slogans. Some examples are:

Astroturfers! Astroturfers! (When pre-made signs were being handed out by the union members. They also handed out mini-American flags that were quickly abandoned which led to cheers of "What happen to the flags? Did they burn your hands?"

USA for Us! Canada for You!

Pay your bills!

Just say No!

Thats not a hybrid! (When one of the few supporters of the liberals honked from a huge SUV. Most people driving by were honking and waving to the conservatives)

Shave your legs! (You had to see the other side to understand-lol)

"Sha na na na-Sha na na na-Hey Hey Hey-Goodbye!" (When each group of supports left. Each group seemed to come together and leave together.)

The union chant of "What do we want-HEALTHCARE! When do we want it-NOW!" was countered by yelling "Our Money" just after they chanted "What do we want?!"-LOL

Supporters dwindled down to about 5 at 9pm with at least 100 still on the opposition side. At one point the 100 cheered for the remaining 5 for showing such determination after their union friend left. (The Union members leaving brought chants of "No Overtime! No Overtime!")

Economics 101

Okay, I want you to repeat after me. Raising taxes does not mean more tax money is collected. Raising taxes does not mean more tax money is collected.

Raising taxes does not mean more tax money is collected.

Read this story. It’s about Maryland deciding the way to solve a budget deficit is not to even consider cutting spending, but by raising taxes on (of course) only the wealthy. So they raised the tax rates on millionaires.

Pay very close attention to this section of the article.

“Governor Martin O'Malley, a dedicated class warrior, declared that these richest 0.3% of filers were "willing and able to pay their fair share." The Baltimore Sun predicted the rich would "grin and bear it."

“One year later, nobody's grinning. One-third of the millionaires have disappeared from Maryland tax rolls. In 2008 roughly 3,000 million-dollar income tax returns were filed by the end of April. This year there were 2,000, which the state comptroller's office concedes is a "substantial decline." On those missing returns, the government collects 6.25% of nothing. Instead of the state coffers gaining the extra $106 million the politicians predicted, millionaires paid $100 million less in taxes than they did last year -- even at higher rates.”

Go back and re-read that last sentence. Here is your economics 101 lesson. Raising taxes discourages spending and investments, and results in lower tax revenues.

This has been proven time and time again. If only those who have the attention span of a gnat would digest this and quit voting for tax-and-spend lefties who are taxing our country into ruin.

You want more tax revenues? LOWER tax rates, encourage spending and investments, and watch as the revenues flow in.

You want to run achievers and earners out of your state? Then by all means, raise taxes and watch the exodus of the people who actually pay taxes, leaving you with all those whose main goal is to get more handouts.

The Thought Police Are Coming For You

Maryland has added homeless people to the list of peoples protected under hate crime laws. When passing the new law, lawmakers referred to a 2001 case where teenagers stomped 3 homeless people to death.

Some thoughts come to mind.

1. Does anyone care that hate crime bills increasingly prohibit thought?

2. Does adding “hate crime” to this make killing three people more serious?

3. Why is killing homeless people considered worse than killing non-homeless people in Maryland?

4. For that matter, if a man is shot to death in a dark alley in the middle of the night and his wallet is stolen, why is it somehow a worse crime if the victim is gay?

5. If killing three homeless people had the added stigma of being a “hate crime” in 2001, would those teens have thought twice about doing what they did? Are we to believe they were willing to violate murder statutes, but a “hate crime” law would have stopped them dead in their tracks?

6. If the same people who push hate crime legislation on us would stop opposing capital punishment, we could have executed these teenagers for triple homicide. How is calling them guilty of committing hate crimes going to be worse than that?

7. Every crime that has “hate crime” added to it is already against the law. Can anyone show us one instance, from any time at any place anywhere in the entire history of the world, where labeling a crime additionally as a “hate crime” resulted in one single instance of added protection for a potential victim?

8. I’ve asked this earlier, but it still bugs me. Why is it okay to stomp a person to death if they own a house? Or, why is it better than stomping a homeless person? You want us to believe it’s “worse” when they stomp a homeless person, then logic dictates it’s better when the victim is not homeless. Why?