Ramirez has it pegged:
Hilarious: 9-year-old kid bent on replacing a guy’s McCain signs with Obama signs doesn’t realize that the owner has gotten sick of his signs getting stolen, and has rigged a low voltage wire to the signposts and is recording the whole thing on hidden camera. Let’s watch!
After Shawn Turschak saw two sets of McCain-Palin signs disappear from his yard within hours of being planted, he took steps to protect the latest pair.
On Monday, he ran wires from his house and hooked the signs into a power source for an electric pet fence. Then he mounted a surveillance camera in a nearby tree and wired it to a digital recorder.
Tuesday afternoon, the camera saw this: A neighbor trotting up with an Obama-Biden sign, grabbing a handful of volts as he touched a McCain-Palin sign, then fleeing at top 9-year-old boy speed.
“This isn’t about politics,” he said. “This is about my right to protect my property and my ability to display my beliefs.”
It gets better:
The boy’s father, Andrew Noble, upset that his son had been shocked, showed up at Turschak’s door. Soon an Orange County sheriff’s deputy also showed up at the Turschak’s home.
Noble said his son just wanted to see how the sign was put together. Turschak said the boy intended to swap out the signs.
Nice try, “Dad.” How’s about returning the sign you sent your son to steal?
If you don’t support Obama’s not-so-stealth wealth redistribution plan, you’re making a, “virtue out of selfishness.”
Obama in Sarasota dismissed the attacks on his tax plans that would raise taxes on families earning more than $250,000 a year, saying tax relief should be targeted to the middle class.
“John McCain and Sarah Palin, they call this socialistic. I don’t know when they decided that they wanted to make a virtue out of selfishness,” Obama said. “You know, the next thing they’re going to do is find evidence of my communistic tendencies because I shared my toys when I was in kindergarten. Because I split my peanut butter and jelly sandwich with my friend in sixth grade.”
Just another example of Obama’s Do as I say, not as I do approach to life, liberty, and the pursuit of power happiness. Lest we forget, Barack Obama and Joe Biden do not like to spread their own wealth around…
Looking at Obama’s charitable giving in since 2000 based on his tax returns, we find that Obama consistently refused to follow his own advice to “spread the wealth” when he had the opportunity to do so. This is especially true in years when he made nearly $250,000 or more… from 2000-2004, Obama’s charitable giving was less than 1 percent.
But after his book deal, and figuring out that people might start to notice, he increased charitable giving to an utterly-selfless 6.1%. More on Joe…
Obama’s running mate, Joe Biden, was even stingier about spreading his wealth. When his tax records were released in September, they revealed that over the past decade he had only donated an average of $369 each year. In 2007, his charitable giving was only $995, or 0.3 percent of income in a year when his tax returns reported $319,853 in income.
By comparison, John McCain gave more than one-quarter of his income in 2006 and 2007 (28.6 and 27.3 percent respectively). And according to the New York Observer, since 1998, he has donated royalties on his books totaling more than $1.8 million.
Yeah, there are a few differences there, y’think? Never mind that those of us that tend to cling to our religion and our guns give more generously to charities than your average blue-stater.
Video added of the Sarasota stump speech (yes, it’s been embellished graphically at the end; not my doing, you can find the full one on Obama’s YouTube channel):
Need to give proper credit to Ed@HotAir and Slublog@Ace since their posts were made far sooner than mine. I was just keying off of the TampaBay.com report and what I recalled from the 20/20 report. Bizzyblog and Patterico’s reference to this showed up in my searches, as well. Props to them and thank you all!
As Ed@HotAir so succinctly points out:
This reveals the basic underlying philosophy of the Left – that one cannot possibly be charitable unless they use the government to redirect their funds.
So Rep. John D. Dingell (D-Mich.) and Rep. Rosa L. DeLauro (D-Conn.) are thinking they can smell power just around the corner and want to start the persecutions early. Up first, retired military officers that provided analysis on the Iraq war for the news media.
The Federal Communications Commission has begun looking into allegations that the Pentagon recruited and, in effect, trained nearly two dozen retired military officers to promote the Bush administration’s war policies in the news media.
Human Events reports further:
Said retired Army Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely, one of Fox’s first defense analysts, “It’s an affront to freedom of speech. As retired officers, we’re private citizens and can say anything we want under the First Amendment. The whole thing was to explain to the American people what was going on in war and analyzing it.”
The FCC sent the letters after receiving a complaint from Rep. Rosa L. DeLauro, (D-Conn.) and Rep. John Dingell, (D-Mich.). Dingell has a history of using committee staff to browbeat and investigate Republican administrations.
“In their complaint, Representatives DeLauro and Dingell express concern that the analysts and [TV stations] may have failed to disclose this exchange of consideration to the stations, as required by section 507 of the Communications Act of 1934,” said the FCC letter. “They also suggest that the stations may have aired your commentary without making appropriate sponsorship identification announcements at the time such material was aired, as required” by the act.
McInerney, a hawk on the Iraq war, said the information the Pentagon supplied him and other commentators was the same as provided to the news media.
The FCC is giving the 19 analysts 30 days to respond to the charges. [HUMAN EVENTS Editor Jed Babbin was a member of the group of military analysts who met frequently with senior Pentagon officials and participated in the program. He did not receive a letter from the FCC.]
It will be interesting to see how this shakes out. And a very scary position to be in if a super-majority Senate were to befall us. No check, no balanaces, just petty, pathetic revenge.
Five days before election day, and they finally do the freaking math:
If he closes every loophole as promised, saves every dime from Iraq, raises taxes on the rich and trims the federal budget as he’s promised to do “line by line,” he still doesn’t pay for his list. If he’s elected, the first fact hitting his desk will be the figure projecting how much less of a budget he has to work with – thanks to the recession. He gave us a very compelling vision with his ad buy tonight. What he did not give us was any hint of the cold reality he’s facing or a sense of how he might prioritize his promises if voters trust him with the White House.
Hmmm… how will he do it? Notice how that “tax break” threshold keeps shrinking? He told Joe the Plumber $250,000. He then said in his “Defining Moment” ad that it was $200,000. Joe Biden was quoted this week saying it was $150,000.
The answer, CBS, is simple: the only way he can pay for his list is to raise taxes on all income levels.
“If Obama loses it will spark the second American Civil War. Blood will run in the streets, believe me. And it’s not a coincidence that President Bush recalled soldiers from Iraq for Dick Cheney to lead against American citizens in the streets.”
That’s not all you have to worry about, Erica, because according to Charles Ogletree, even if Obama wins, we still won’t be out of the woods on racism. Why?
Top Obama adviser Prof. Charles Ogletree says 21st-century white America, as a general rule, remains racist towards Blacks, Latinos, and Asians, and racism is likely to persist for decades — Barack Obama is an exception only because “he happens to be biracial,” so that his election will not be proof that whites have moved beyond racism. [source]