.jpg)
Conservative have to love Mi Love (See my comments and 8 below.)
This from a fast food chain franchisee, dear Conservative friend and fellow memo reader who knows what he is talking about. (See 1 below.)
===
A clever parody! (See 2 below.)
===
A little known War Memorial sent to me by a friend and fellow memo reader.
|
===
Stick it to the rich? Hell, they already have been stuck: (See 3 below.)
===
Perhaps closer than you think! (See 4 below.)
===
Schiff has been early and therefore, wrong but maybe he will prove to be right given more time. (See 5 below.)
===
This LTE from a dear Conservative friend and fellow memo reader. (See 6 below.)
===
Heard that George 'Looney' is engaged to his lawyer who defended Julian Assange (Wikki Leaks). Guess Jane Fonda was too old.
and
So what's new? (See 7 below.)
===
I Voted today and hope you will to . Nov. 20 is Primary Day but you can now vote early and avoid lines etc.
===
I seldom contribute to candidates outside my own territory because I believe that it is not appropriate for me to exercise any influence where I do not live but I have made an exception in the case of this exceptional person who has been vilified by Elitist Hypocrite Liberals who fear her message might resonate with Black Americans who continue to be enslaved and victims to/of the Democrat Party and its destruction racial policies!
Conservatives have to Love Mia Love! (See 8 below.)
===
|
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)Advocates for low-wage workers have mounted a long campaign to raise wages in the fast food industry. At the same time, it has become fashionable for those pushing to raise the minimum wage to show that various companies have enough profits to pay higher wages without raising prices or with only small price increases. One of the most pernicious of these examples relates to McDonald’s, but the point holds for all the fast food restaurants. These higher-wage advocates need to stop acting as if McDonald’s owns most of the restaurants that they want to force to pay higher wages. In reality, most fast food restaurants are small businesses, not giant corporations.
There are around 35,000 McDonald’s in the world, with about 14,000 stores in the U.S. However, of those U.S. stores, McDonald’s the corporation owns only about 3,000 while franchisees operate the remaining 11,000 stores. In other words, about 80 percent of the McDonald’s here in the U.S. are small businesses, not some corporate giant.
Photo credit: Sean MacEntee
It is convenient for advocates for higher wages to point to McDonald’s $5.5 annual profit, do a little math, and claim the company can afford to pay workers higher wages, but such calculations are irrelevant. Most of those workers do not work for McDonald’s; they work for some local person who operates that McDonald’s restaurant. McDonald’s the corporation owns the land and building and collects rent and royalty payments from the local operator. The franchisee runs the business, hires and fires employees, and sets wages based on local labor market conditions and his or her evaluation of the value of each employee to the business. These restaurant owners have invested hundreds of thousands of dollars (up to several million) and have created between twenty and fifty jobs per store depending on the exact restaurant type. They may be earning a little or a lot depending on how well their restaurant does, but none of these restaurant operators has billions of dollars in profits to shift to workers. Rather, those corporate profits are largely generated by the royalty payments that are one of the costs to the franchisee operating most of the fast food restaurants you visit.
Further weakening the already weak case for higher wages due to the presence of corporate profits, these advocates also make claims about the cost such businesses impose on the taxpayer that are designed to make sound public policy seem like out-of-control corporate welfare. For example, The National Employment Law Project is pushing a study claiming that fast food workers collect $1.2 billion in government benefits. These benefits are Medicaid, S-CHIP (government health insurance for poor children whose parents do not qualify for Medicaid), the earned income tax credit, SNAP (food stamps), and TANF (welfare). The power of this number is that it is much smaller than McDonald’s annual profit; making a handy prop to suggest that McDonald’s should pay its workers more rather than force them to rely on government handouts.
Unfortunately, these numbers have more to do with our current government policy of providing a generous social safety net than any corporate welfare run amok. First, as already pointed out, most of the workers in question do not work for McDonald’s but for some local restaurant operator. Second, once the numbers are put in perspective, they suddenly become rather reasonable. Taking the $1.2 billion estimate as valid (which is not certain by any means), that equates to $85,000 per store. An average McDonald’s employs 50 people, meaning the number translates into an average of $1,714 per worker in government benefits. Given that Medicaid and S-CHIP can cost $10,000 per family, $1,700 per worker does not seem that high.
Now focus on the earned income tax credit (EITC) for a moment. The EITC is designed to boost incomes of low-wage workers so that working is a better deal than staying unemployed (and collecting more in government benefits). The EITC is designed to save taxpayers money and make low-income working families better off; in other words, everyone wins from this program. For a married couple with two kids, the amount they can collect rises until income reaches $13,400 per year (at which point they would collect a credit of $5,372) stays at that level until they earn $22,900, and then begins to decline.
That means that if one adult in this family worked full time for a local McDonald’s, the EITC they would collect would be exactly the same at the current minimum wage of $7.25 and at the proposed $10.10 per hour that President Obama has asked for (because in both cases they would be under $22,900 in earnings). In fact, even at the $15/hour that some advocates are demanding, our family would still collect about $3,600 in an EITC. Our married couple with two kids would need to earn a little over $48,000 before their earned income tax credit would go to zero. Does anybody think McDonald’s should pay people $48,000 per year to make French fries?
The simple reality is that society has decided everyone should be given health insurance if they cannot afford it, everyone with income under certain limits should be given help with food, shelter, income support, and all the other benefit programs that the government administers. A family with two kids can receive Obamacare subsidies even if they earn over $90,000 per year. We have plenty of jobs in America today that need doing but could never pay $48,000 or $90,000 per year. If employers paid that much they would have no customers given the prices that they would have to charge.
Workers who collect a paycheck and government benefits are not doing anything wrong. They are simply following the rules of a system designed to provide some help to workers in order to get more people working rather than choosing welfare over a low-or medium-wage job. That is the way the system was built, a system designed by the same people who are now pretending to complain about how it is working. Some fast food workers will be collecting government benefits until we either shrink the social safety net or they all get paid nearly $100,000 per year.
The reality is this campaign for higher wages is simply a push to redistribute income from business owners to workers and a ploy to convince workers to unionize. It is the size of the social safety net that is causing so many workers today to also be collecting government benefits, not the size of their paychecks.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)
Receptionist: Hello, Welcome to Obama Flowers. My name is Trina. How can I help you?
Customer: Hello. I received an email from Professional Flowers stating that my flower order has been canceled and I should go to your exchange to reorder it. I tried your website, but it seems like it is not working. So I am calling the 800 number.
Receptionist: Yes! I am sorry about the website. It should be fixed by the end of November. But I can help you.
Customer: Thanks, I ordered a "Spring Bouquet" for our anniversary, and wanted it delivered to my wife.
Receptionist: (Interrupting) “Sir, ‘Spring Bouquets’ do not meet our minimum standards. I will be happy to provide you with Red Roses.
Customer: But I have always ordered "Spring Bouquets." I've done it for years, my wife likes them.
Receptionist: Roses are better, sir, I am sure your wife will love them.
Customer: Well, how much are they?
Receptionist: It depends sir, do you want our Bronze, Silver, Gold or Platinum package.
Customer: What's the difference?
Receptionist: 6, 12, 18 or 24 Red Roses.
Customer: The Silver package may be okay, how much is it?
Receptionist: It depends sir, what is your monthly income?
Customer: What does that have to do with anything?
Receptionist: I need that to determine your government flower subsidy, then I can determine how much your out-of-pocket cost will be. But if your income is below our minimums for a subsidy, then I can refer you to our Flower Aid department.
Customer: Flower Aid?
Receptionist: Yes, flowers are a right. Everyone has a right to flowers. So, if you can't afford them, then the government will supply them free of charge.
Customer: Who said they were a right?
Receptionist: Congress passed it, the President signed it and the Supreme Court found it constitutional.
Customer: Whoa! I don't remember seeing anything in the Constitution regarding flowers as a right.
Receptionist: It is not really a "Right in the Constitution," but Obama Flowers is Constitutional because the Supreme Court ruled it a "Tax." Taxes are Constitutional. But we feel it is a right.
Customer: I don't believe this.
Receptionist: It's the law of the land sir. Now, we anticipated most people would go for the Silver Package, so what is your monthly income sir?
Customer: Forget it, I think I will forgo the flowers this year.
Receptionist: In that case sir, I will still need your monthly income.
Customer: Why?
Receptionist: To determine what your 'non-participation' cost would be.
Customer: WHAT? You can't charge me for NOT buying flowers!
Receptionist: It's the law of the land, sir, approved by the Supreme Court. It's $9.50 or 1% of your monthly income.
Customer interrupting: This is ridiculous, I'll pay the $9.50.
Receptionist: Sir, it is $9.50 or 1% of your monthly income, whichever is greater.
Customer: ARE YOU KIDDING ME? What a rip-off!
Receptionist: Actually sir, it is a good deal. Next year it will be 2%.
Customer: Look, I'm going to call my Congressman to find out what's going on here. This is ridiculous. I'm not going to pay it.
Receptionist: Sorry to hear that sir. That's why I had the NSA track this call and obtain the make and model of the cell phone you are using.
Customer: Why does the NSA need to know what kind of CELL PHONE I AM USING?
Receptionist: So they get your GPS coordinates, sir.
(Doorbell rings, followed immediately by a loud knock on the door.)
Receptionist: That would be the IRS, sir. Thanks for calling Obama Flowers. Have a nice day and God Bless America!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3) All...Here is the most recent update from the IRS on Federal Income taxes paid by bracket as a percentage of total tax dollars paid..Note also the effective tax rate by bracket which is interesting as well..The bottom 50 % of all federal income tax payers pay 2.9 % of all tax dollars...and their effective tax rate after deductions of all types is 3.13 %..The most stark statistic is that the top 25% of taxpayers pay 85.6 % of all Federal income taxes in the U.S.This means that the bottom 75 % pay only 14.4% of all tax dollars...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1..Top 1 %...35.1 % of all tax dollars paid.. effect. rate..23.5%2.Top 5 %...56.5 % of all tax dollars paid...effect. rate 20.9%3.Top10 %...68.3 % of all tax dollars paid. effect. rate 18.9 %4.Top 25 %...85.6 % of all tax dollars paid...effect. rate 15.8 %5.Top 50%...97.1 % of all tax dollars paid...effect. rate 13.8 %6. Bottom 50 % ..2.9 % of all tax dollars paid...effect. rate 3.13%
4) Time for another Constitutional Convention
By Joseph Perkins
John Paul Stevens spent 35 years on the Supreme Court, during which span he “evolved,” as his hagiographers put it, from a preponderantly conservative jurist to “one of the court’s most outspoken liberal voices,” as PBS’ Judy Woodruff described him, lovingly.
The former associate justice retired from the high court four years ago, when he turned 90. But the nonagenarian did not go gently into the good night.
In 2011, he wrote his Supreme Court memoir. And, just this month, Stevens dropped his latest book, in which he proposes six constitutional amendments that, to his mind, would make America a better place.
• He would rewrite the Second Amendment to stipulate that only a state’s militia has the right to keep and bear arms, and not those of us who simply want to protect our homes and our families.
• He would similarly rewrite the Eighth Amendment to explicitly declare capital punishment unconstitutionally “cruel and unusual punishment.”
• He would limit campaign contributions by rewriting the First Amendment.
• He would ban gerrymandered congressional and state legislative districts by requiring “compact and composed contiguous territory.”
• He would withdraw the sovereign immunity of the 50 states from liability for violating the Constitution or an act of Congress.
• And he would grant Congress new powers to require states to perform federal duties in emergencies.
Stevens recognizes that he almost certainly will not live to see his six proposed amendments added to the Constitution. And that’s not just because he’s 94 years of age. It’s also because of the extremely daunting process for amending the Constitution.
Indeed, a proposed amendment would require a resolution approved by two-thirds majorities in both the House and Senate. Then it would require ratification of three-quarters of the 50 states.
So daunting is that process that the Constitution has been amended only 18 times in the past 223 years. That includes the 10 amendments that make up the Bill of Rights.
To pass a half-dozen amendments, as Stevens proposes, in fewer than a hundred years or so requires some serious outside-the-box thinking.
Like invoking – for the first time in U.S. history – the clause in Article V of the Constitution, which specifies that, if two-thirds of state legislatures demand a meet-up, Congress “shall call a convention for proposing amendments.”
As it happens, we just might be on the verge of a Constitutional Convention.
Indeed, while it hasn’t dominated cable news – compared with, say, CNN’s saturation coverage of missing Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 – Michigan this month appeared to become the 34th state legislature to call for such a convention, which would meet the requirements of Article V.
While most of the amendments proposed by former justice Stevens would be dead-on-arrival at a potential Constitutional Convention, there just might be bipartisan support for one or two – like making states liable for violating the Constitution or an act of Congress or, maybe, banning gerrymandered congressional and state legislative districts.
Meanwhile, a Constitutional Convention could very well result in the addition of several worthy amendments that have been a long time coming. Most notably, a balanced-budget amendment stating that Congress may spend no more each fiscal year than the revenue it brings in.
The prospect of such a requirement being constitutional law rather than statutory law – which both Congress and the president routinely ignore – is what provided much of the impetus for the prospective constitutional amendment.
An amendment that explicitly guarantees Americans the “right to privacy” would be almost as popular as the balanced-budget amendment, in the wake of revelations about the government’s warrantless monitoring of emails, cellphone records, bank transactions, etc.
And a victims’-rights amendment, giving crime victims the same standing before the law as the criminally accused, would also garner substantial support.
It’s been more than two centuries since nation’s lawgivers gathered for a Constitutional Convention. The sequel is long overdue.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------5) Peter Schiff: Fed Easing Will Push Gold to $5,000
Gold has climbed 8 percent so far this year, and the party is just getting started, says Peter Schiff, CEO of Euro Pacific Capital.
The Federal Reserve will ultimately reverse the tapering of its quantitative easing (QE), which will send gold soaring, ultimately reaching $5,000 an ounce, he predicts.
"I believe the consensus expectation that the U.S. recovery is real and that the Fed will end its [QE] program and normalize interest rates is wrong," Schiff tells MarketWatch.
"When the Fed has to admit that its forecast of a sustained recovery is wrong, it will come to the aid of a faltering economy with even more QE. When that happens, gold will rally."
Other factors that will boost the precious metal are a weaker dollar and rising commodity prices, including oil, Schiff proclaims.
"Also, any major geopolitical concerns, particularly if there is a deterioration of the situation in Ukraine, will add to gold's appeal. I also expect renewed physical demand from emerging markets like India and China," he notes.
"Most likely prices have bottomed, as too many speculators are looking for lower prices," he adds. "The fundamental case for gold has also never been stronger. From a gold short seller's perspective, this will prove to be the equivalent of a perfect storm. Their losses will be severe."
Spot gold was at $1,303.10 an ounce early Monday, little changed from $1,302.84 late on Friday, while U.S. gold futures for June delivery were up 70 cents an ounce at $1,301.50.
Gold prices are expected to rise this week as investors seek haven investments amid the crisis in Ukraine.
"Gold went 'bid' as soon as there was violence and death,” Frank Lesh, broker and futures analyst with FuturePath Trading told the International Business Times. “A diplomatic and political standoff is enough to support gold, but it takes guns going off to propel it higher."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6)"Remembering the initial responses of our current administration in Washington to many controversies, I have come to the conclusion that President Obama and his staff suffer from a disorder known as premature evaluation. Consider, "Benghazi was a spontaneous uprising in response to a video", "Not even a smidgen of corruption" in the IRS targeting of conservative groups and most recently, "Obamacare is working". All these conclusions are spewed form in a moment of excitement before a full examination of the facts is completed. This disorder is not a big deal in situations like "dinner looks great", before you taste it. But when it comes to issues of national security, the defense of free speech and the evaluation of a government program, this disorder is serious.
This treatment should cure premature evaluation and prevent the nation from a case of paranoia due to government mistrust."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7) Kerry Warns Israel Could Become ‘An Apartheid State’
By Josh Rogin
The secretary of state said that if Israel doesn’t make peace soon, it could become ‘an apartheid state,’ like the old South Africa. Jewish leaders are fuming over the comparison.
If there’s no two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict soon, Israel risks becoming “an apartheid state,” Secretary of State John Kerry told a room of influential world leaders in a closed-door meeting Friday.
Senior American officials have rarely, if ever, used the term “apartheid” in reference to Israel, and President Obama has previously rejected the idea that the word should apply to the Jewish state. Kerry's use of the loaded term is already rankling Jewish leaders in America—and it could attract unwanted attention in Israel, as well.
It wasn't the only controversial comment on the Middle East that Kerry made during his remarks to the Trilateral Commission, a recording of which was obtained by The Daily Beast. Kerry also repeated his warning that a failure of Middle East peace talks could lead to a resumption of Palestinian violence against Israeli citizens. He suggested that a change in either the Israeli or Palestinian leadership could make achieving a peace deal more feasible. He lashed out against Israeli settlement-building. And Kerry said that both Israeli and Palestinian leaders share the blame for the current impasse in the talks.
Kerry also said that at some point, he might unveil his own peace deal and tell both sides to “take it or leave it.”
“A two-state solution will be clearly underscored as the only real alternative. Because a unitary state winds up either being an apartheid state with second-class citizens—or it ends up being a state that destroys the capacity of Israel to be a Jewish state,” Kerry told the group of senior officials and experts from the U.S., Western Europe, Russia, and Japan. “Once you put that frame in your mind, that reality, which is the bottom line, you understand how imperative it is to get to the two-state solution, which both leaders, even yesterday, said they remain deeply committed to.”
According to the 1998 Rome Statute, the “crime of apartheid” is defined as “inhumane acts… committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime.” The term is most often used in reference to the system of racial segregation and oppression that governed South Africa from 1948 until 1994.
Former president Jimmy Carter came under fire in 2007 for titling his book on Middle East peace Palestine: Peace or Apartheid. Carter has said publicly that his views on Israeli treatment of the Palestinians are a main cause of his poor relationship with President Obama and his lack of current communication with the White House. But Carter explained after publishing the book that he was referring to apartheid-type policies in the West Bank, not Israel proper, and he was not accusing Israel of institutionalized racism.
“Apartheid is a word that is an accurate description of what has been going on in the West Bank, and it’s based on the desire or avarice of a minority of Israelis for Palestinian land,” Carter said.
“Injecting a term like apartheid into the discussion doesn’t advance that goal [of peace],” Obama said. “It’s emotionally loaded, historically inaccurate, and it’s not what I believe.”
Leading experts, including Richard Goldstone, a former justice of the South African Constitutional Court who led the United Nations fact-finding mission on the Gaza conflict of 2008 and 2009, have argued that comparisons between the Israeli treatment of the Palestinians and “apartheid” are offensive and wrong.
“One particularly pernicious and enduring canard that is surfacing again is that Israel pursues ‘apartheid’ policies,” Goldstone wrote in The New York Times in 2011. “It is an unfair and inaccurate slander against Israel, calculated to retard rather than advance peace negotiations.”
In a 2008 interview with Jeffrey Goldberg, then-Sen. Barack Obama shot down the notion that the word “apartheid” was acceptable in a discussion about Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians:
“There’s no doubt that Israel and the Palestinians have tough issues to work out to get to the goal of two states living side by side in peace and security, but injecting a term like apartheid into the discussion doesn’t advance that goal,” Obama said. “It’s emotionally loaded, historically inaccurate, and it’s not what I believe.”
State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki told The Daily Beast that Kerry was simply repeating his view, shared by others, that a two-state solution is the only way for Israel to remain a Jewish state in peace with the Palestinians.
“Secretary Kerry, like Justice Minister Livni, and previous Israeli Prime Ministers Olmert and Barak, was reiterating why there's no such thing as a one-state solution if you believe, as he does, in the principle of a Jewish State. He was talking about the kind of future Israel wants and the kind of future both Israelis and Palestinians would want to envision,” she said. “The only way to have two nations and two peoples living side by side in peace and security is through a two-state solution. And without a two-state solution, the level of prosperity and security the Israeli and Palestinian people deserve isn't possible.”
But leaders of pro-Israel organizations told The Daily Beast that Kerry’s reference to “apartheid” was appalling and inappropriately alarmist because of its racial connotations and historical context.
“One particularly pernicious and enduring canard that is surfacing again is that Israel pursues ‘apartheid’ policies,” Goldstone wrote in The New York Times in 2011. “It is an unfair and inaccurate slander against Israel, calculated to retard rather than advance peace negotiations.”
Yet Israel’s leaders have employed the term, as well. In 2010, for example, former Prime Minister and Defense Minister Ehud Barak used language very similar to Kerry’s. “As long as in this territory west of the Jordan River there is only one political entity called Israel it is going to be either non-Jewish, or non-democratic,” Barak said. “If this bloc of millions of Palestinians cannot vote, that will be an apartheid state.”
“While we’ve heard Secretary Kerry express his understandable fears about alternative prospects for Israel to a two-state deal and we understand the stakes involved in reaching that deal, the use of the word ‘apartheid’ is not helpful at all. It takes the discussion to an entirely different dimension,” said David Harris, executive director of the American Jewish Committee, an organization that has been supportive of Kerry’s peace process initiative. “In trying to make his point, Kerry reaches into diplomatic vocabulary to raise the stakes, but in doing so he invokes notions that have no place in the discussion.”
Kerry has used dire warnings twice in the past to paint a picture of doom for Israel if the current peace process fails. Last November, Kerry warned of a third intifada of Palestinian violence and increased isolation of Israel if the peace process failed. In March, Democrats and Republican alike criticized Kerry for suggesting that if peace talks fail, it would bolster the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel.
“It’s in the Palestinian playbook to tie Israel to these extreme notions of time being on the Palestinian side, that demographics are on the Palestinian side, and that Israel has to confront notions of the Jewishness of the state,” Harris said.
Kerry on Friday repeated his warning that a dissolution of the peace process might lead to more Palestinian violence. “People grow so frustrated with their lot in life that they begin to take other choices and go to dark places they’ve been before, which forces confrontation,” he said.
The secretary of state also implied, but did not say outright, that if the governments of Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu or Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas left power, there could be a change in the prospects for peace. If “there is a change of government or a change of heart,” Kerry said, “something will happen.”
Kerry criticized Israeli settlement construction as being unhelpful to the peace process and he also criticized Palestinian leaders for making statements that declined to recognize the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state.
“There is a fundamental confrontation and it is over settlements. Fourteen thousand new settlement units announced since we began negotiations. It’s very difficult for any leader to deal under that cloud,” Kerry said.
He acknowledged that the formal negotiating process that he initiated and led since last summer may soon stop. But he maintained that his efforts to push for a final settlement will continue in one form or another.
“The reports of the demise of the peace process have consistently been misunderstood and misreported. And even we are now getting to the moment of obvious confrontation and hiatus, but I would far from declare it dead,” Kerry said. “You would say this thing is going to hell in a handbasket, and who knows, it might at some point, but I don’t think it is right now, yet.”
Kerry gave both Israeli and Palestinian leaders credit for sticking with the peace process for this long. But he added that both sides were to blame for the current impasse in the talks; neither leader was ready to make the tough decisions necessary for achieving peace.
“There’s a period here where there needs to be some regrouping. I don’t think it’s unhealthy for both of them to have to stare over the abyss and understand where the real tensions are and what the real critical decisions are that have to be made,” he said. “Neither party is quite ready to make it at this point in time. That doesn’t mean they don’t have to make these decisions.”
Kerry said that he was considering, at some point, publicly laying out a comprehensive U.S. plan for a final agreement between the Israelis and the Palestinians, in a last-ditch effort to forge a deal before the Obama administration leaves office in 2017.
“We have enough time to do any number of things, including the potential at some point in time that we will just put something out there. ‘Here it is, folks. This is what it looks like. Take it or leave it,’” Kerry said.
Josh Rogin is senior correspondent for national security and politics for The Daily Beast. He previously worked at Newsweek, Foreign Policy magazine, Congressional Quarterly,Federal Computer Week magazine, and Japan’s leading daily newspaper, The Asahi Shimbun. He hails from Philadelphia and lives in Washington, D.C.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8)There is one conservative leader that scaresBarack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, and the entire left-wing political establishment to death.
Mia Love.
Mia just won the Republican nomination for Congress this past Saturday, and now she has the chance to become the first female African-American Republican member of Congress in American history.
She has the ability to undercut and destroy Barack Obama’s “GOP war on women”campaign strategy.
This one conservative lady could undermine the Democrats so much that she could completelyruin Hillary Clinton’s campaign for President!
Mia lost her race for Congress in 2012 because the conservative grassroots didn’t know her very well and shied away from helping her as much they could.
That gave the liberals the chance to pound on Mia Love with horrible negative ads.
They called her parents illegal aliens. They lied about her record.
We must not let that happen again! Mia Love is too good a candidate. Her election to Congress presents too great of an opportunity for the conservative movement.
Conservative StrikeForce is right now assembling a massive plan to help Mia Love win this congressional race. But we desperately need your help to fund it.
I expect that the national Obama political organization will do anything it can to beat Mia Love this year. They know Mia represents a grave threat to the Democratic Party’s entire political strategy.
Right now they are spending millions trying to make conservatives look like women-hating Neanderthals.
Every day they scream that conservatives are racists and that we despise anyone who isn’t rich and white.
If we can elect Mia Love, we can put that nonsense to rest once and for all.
Mia Love is a hard-core conservative African American woman who will be a national political leader for our movement the very second she takes the oath of office.
That’s why the liberals will do whatever it takes to destroy her.
Remember, in 2012 Nancy Pelosi poured money into Mia Love’s race to fund negative ads. She was absolutely ruthless.
I expect her to do even worse this year. For the liberals, the stakes are that high.
And that’s why Conservative StrikeForce is getting involved in this race.
Conservative StrikeForce spent thousands of dollars in support of Mia in 2012 and we are going to do the same in 2014 with your help. We will not allow Nancy Pelosi to get away with lying about Mia again. We are preparing now for an all out fight.
This contest is probably the most politically significant congressional race in America this year. Its outcome could impact other campaigns for years to come.
Just imagine Hillary Clinton trying to run for President with Congresswoman Mia Love following her across the nation and refuting every ludicrous statement she makes!
For that reason alone we must elect Mia Love!
Mia Love’s election will completely destroy every ridiculous lie and smear the liberals have been spreading about the Republican Party.
It will set the stage for a conservative landslide in 2016.
Mia Love needs our help. She can’t defeat the liberal labor unions, the left-wing special interest groups, Nancy Pelosi, and Barack Obama all by herself.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment