‘Little House on the Prairie’ Actress Melissa Gilbert To Run for Congress in Michigan’s 8th District as a Democrat
Damn, Laura “Half Pint” Ingalls is a Democrat …
51 year old Laura Ingalls is going to run for Congress in 2016 in Michigan’s 8th District. Melissa Gilbert is going to run as a Democrat in a district that has lately become a GOP stronghold in recent elections. Although Laura Ingalls has not held political office before, which is probably a good thing in this day and age, but she was president of the Screen Actors Guild serving two terms from 2001 to 2005. However, it appears that Melissa Gilbert’s campaign may have difficulties before it begins. In June 2015, the Daily Press & Argus in Livingston County reported that the IRS filed a lien against Gilbert, alleging she owes more than $360,000 in back taxes. Who thinks that Michigan Republicans will use this as political ad fodder and rightfully so. One would think that locals in her district might have an issue with this as well, one would think.
Oh those tax and spend liberals and the hypocrisy of it all.
Actress Melissa Gilbert, best known for her portrayal of Laura Ingalls Wilder on NBC’s “Little House on the Prairie” in the 1970s and ‘80s, said Monday she will run for Congress in Michigan’s 8th District — though her campaign will have to tamp down questions about a tax bill.
Gilbert, who lives in Livingston County with her husband, actor Timothy Busfield, is running as a Democrat in a district that has been a Republican stronghold in recent elections: U.S. Rep. Mike Bishop, R-Rochester, won the race to replace former U.S. Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Howell, last year, beating Democrat Eric Schertzing, 54%-42%.
But someone with Gilbert’s celebrity could make a splash, especially when it comes to raising funds for her campaign. Bishop was recently added to the Republican’s Patriot Program, an effort to help potentially vulnerable incumbents maintain their seats in Congress, though it’s unclear why he was marked for such aid.
“I’m running for Congress to make life a little easier for all the families who feel they have fallen through the cracks in today’s economy,” Gilbert said in a statement released on her website, www.gilbertformichigan.com. “I believe building a new economy is a team effort, and we need to bring fresh voices to the table to get the job done.”
REMEMBER HOW WE WERE TOLD THAT THE UNITED STATES DOES NOT PAY RANSOM FOR HOSTAGES …
As reported at the New York Times, your hard earned tax dollars financing Islamist terrorists. This is just another example that the US government has become too big to succeed. As stated in the article, it was just another in a long list of examples of how the United States, largely because of poor oversight and loose financial controls. In this case, the poor oversight and lack of attention to detail gives hard earned American tax payer dollars to the very evil radical Islamist terrorists we are looking to defeat. UNREAL.
Why does this sound exactly like the brilliance of ‘Fast & Furious’?
In the spring of 2010, Afghan officials struck a deal to free an Afghan diplomat held hostage by Al Qaeda. But the price was steep — $5 million — and senior security officials were scrambling to come up with the money.
They first turned to a secret fund that the Central Intelligence Agency bankrolled with monthly cash deliveries to the presidential palace in Kabul, according to several Afghan officials involved in the episode. The Afghan government, they said, had already squirreled away about $1 million from that fund.
Within weeks, that money and $4 million more provided from other countries was handed over to Al Qaeda, replenishing its coffers after a relentless C.I.A. campaign of drone strikes in Pakistan had decimated the militant network’s upper ranks.
The C.I.A.’s contribution to Qaeda’s bottom line, though, was no well-laid trap. It was just another in a long list of examples of how the United States, largely because of poor oversight and loose financial controls, has sometimes inadvertently financed the very militants it is fighting.
While refusing to pay ransoms for Americans kidnapped by Al Qaeda, the Taliban or, more recently, the Islamic State, the United States has spent hundreds of billions of dollars over the last decade at war in Iraq and Afghanistan, some of which has been siphoned off to enemy fighters.
Barack Obama Family’s 2014 Christmas Vacation in Hawaii Cost Taxpayers $3,672,798 in Transportation Expenses
MERRY CHRISTMAS FROM BARACK OBAMA AND THE FIRST FAMILY …
Did you get a thank you card America? Don’t worry, neither did I. As announced at Judicial Watch, the Obama Family’s 2014 Christmas vacation in Hawaii cost taxpayers $3,672,798 in transportation expenses. This while many hard working, tax paying families struggled to put presents under the tree for their children. Obama is pretty good at giving gifts away at the expense of the American tax payer. Then there is his vacations …
Judicial Watch announced today it obtained records from the U.S. Department of the Air Force revealing that the Obama family’s 2014 Christmas vacation to Honolulu, Hawaii, cost taxpayers $3,672,798 in flight expenses alone. Christmas in Hawaii is an annual tradition for the family and their most recent visit, from December 19, 2014, to January 4, 2015, marked their seventh Hawaiian vacation. The documents came from the Department of the Air Force in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request filed on January 5, 2015. Costs for the trip to Hawaii, to the West Coast, and to Martha’s Vineyard last year, cost nearly $3 million alone in transportation.
According to the documents, the Obama’s spent 17.8 hours in the air round-trip at $206,337.00 per hour, bringing the total cost to taxpayers to $3,672,798.60.
According to other figures obtained by Judicial Watch over the past three years, Obama Hawaii Christmas vacations have cost taxpayers $15,540,515.10 in transportation expenses alone. This includes outbound and return flight expenses in 2012 totaling $4,086,355.20. (The Secret Service provided documents for Obama’s Christmas 2012 trip to Honolulu. The grand total is $654,599.40 including $409,225.78 in hotels.) Flight expenses for the Obamas’ Christmas vacations to Hawaii cost taxpayers $7,781,361.30.
And the Christmas 2014 flight expense of $3,672,798.60. The average American family spent $4,580 on Christmas in 2014.
NOW THE IMPERIAL PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA WANTS TO RAISE TAXES THRU EXECUTIVE ACTION …
THE IMPERIAL PRESIDENT STRIKES AGAIN … When does it stop with this president? Now through his mouth piece White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest, he confirmed that President Obama is “very interested” in the idea of raising taxes through unilateral executive action. When does it stop with this law-breaking President? Does Barack Obama care that there is a US Constitution, or is he just hell-bent to do as much damage as he possibly can before he leaves office as a bunch of gutless Republicans sit back and do nothing. How sad is it that America has become a country with a Democrat president who shreds the Constitution and Republican Congress who is too afraid to defend it.
America, just because some one uses the world “Middle class” does not mean that you are allowed to shred the Constitution. This is the Obama BS and his way to get low information folks on his side, say middle class and that makes it perfectly okay that he could give a lick of the founding documents of this country.
Go to the 1:10:45 mark of the VIDEO for the tax raising BS
White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest confirmed Monday that President Obama is “very interested” in the idea of raising taxes through unitlateral executive action.
“The president certainly has not indicated any reticence in using his executive authority to try and advance an agenda that benefits middle class Americans,” Earnest said in response to a question about Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) calling on Obama to raise more than $100 billion in taxes through IRS executive action.
“Now I don’t want to leave you with the impression that there is some imminent announcement, there is not, at least that I know of,” Earnest continued. “But the president has asked his team to examine the array of executive authorities that are available to him to try to make progress on his goals. So I am not in a position to talk in any detail at this point, but the president is very interested in this avenue generally,” Earnest finished.
Daily Commentary – Friday, August 29, 2014 – Burger King Set to Purchase Canadian Compony Tim Horton’s for 11 Billion
- Then transfer it’s headquarters to Canada so it can take advantage of the lower taxes. Some say it’s time to boycott Burger King
Another Obamacare Swindle on the American Poeple … Tax Payer Bailout for Insurance Companies Who Lose $’s That Provide Coverage Through the Affordable Care Act
ITS THE GIFT THAT KEEPS GIVING IT TO THE AMERICAN TAX PAYER …
Obama administration officials for months have denied charges by opponents that they plan a “bailout” for insurance companies providing coverage under the healthcare law. Here comes a shock, guess what … THEY LIED!!! As reported at the LA Times, in yet another end run around Congress, quietly adjusted key provisions of its signature healthcare law to potentially make billions of additional taxpayer dollars available to the insurance industry if companies providing coverage through the Affordable Care Act lose money. Ever wonder why insurance companies were all in for Obamacare? Looks like they had an out to be paid back for losses through a government bailout courtesy of the American tax payers.
This law should be considered a crime perpetrated on the American people. There was an intelligent, logical and proper way to go about attempting to provide healthcare to Americans who wanted it and make it affordable … THIS WAS NOT IT AND WAS NEVER INTENDED TO BE.
The Obama administration has quietly adjusted key provisions of its signature healthcare law to potentially make billions of additional taxpayer dollars available to the insurance industry if companies providing coverage through the Affordable Care Act lose money.
The move was buried in hundreds of pages of new regulations issued late last week. It comes as part of an intensive administration effort to hold down premium increases for next year, a top priority for the White House as the rates will be announced ahead of this fall’s congressional elections.
Administration officials for months have denied charges by opponents that they plan a “bailout” for insurance companies providing coverage under the healthcare law.
They continue to argue that most insurers shouldn’t need to substantially increase premiums because safeguards in the healthcare law will protect them over the next several years.
Posted May 22, 2014 by Scared Monkeys
Abuse of Power, Barack Obama, Chicago-Style Politics, collusion, Congress, Conspiracy, cronyism, Democrats, Government, Healthcare, Imperial President, Liberals, Misleader, Misrepresentation, Obamacare, Obamatax, Tax & Spend Liberals, Taxes, The Lying King, Transparency, WTF | 3 comments
Daily Commentary – Thursday, April 17,2014 – Chicago Man Claiming to be Tax Exempt Refuses to Pay 22 Cent Tax
- Nahshon Shelton didn’t want to pay the 22-cent tax so he pulled out his 22 caliber semi automatic
Daily Commentary – Thursday, April 17,2014 Download
2016 Presidential Thoughts, RUN BERNIE , RUN … Vermont Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders Says He’d Make a Better President Than Hillary Clinton
RUN BERNIE … RUN!!! WILL HILLARY HAVE A CHALLENGE FROM THE LEFT?
In an interview with Time, the senator from the Socialist Republic of Vermont, Bernie Sander (VT-
IS), had much to say on a wide range of issues like the legalization of marijuana, social security, and Barack Obama’s job as president; however, the biggest news was when Sanders said that he would make a better president than Hillary Clinton. When asked who would make a better president, Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders, he said … Bernie Sanders. Will the Independent socialist, who caucuses with Democrats in the Senate be the thorn in Hillary’s 2016 presidential election side? The Independent Socialist Senator said he “liked Hilliary” and she is a “very, very intelligent person”. However, Sanders said there needs to be a leader “to wage a political revolution in this country which brings millions of people into the political process to stand up and fighting for their rights in a way that we have not seen right now,” and Hillary Clinton was not the leader of that movement.
Q. Who do you think would make a better President, Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders?
Bernie Sanders. So you’re asking your question more direct. [Laughter] And I think in this particular moment when the problems facing this country are so severe, when we have seen class warfare being waged by the billionaires against the working families of America, when we have seen the billionaire class use its money in an unprecedented way for its political purposes to let more right wing extremists, I think we need people in leadership roles in the House and the Senate and governors’ chairs, in the White House, who are prepared to stand up and say, ‘You know what? This country belongs to all of the people: the waiters and the waitresses who are trying to make it on low incomes, they have a right to see their kids go to college and all people, that the United States is going to join the rest of the industrialized world in guaranteed health care to all people as a right and not any longer be the only country, major country on earth that does not guarantee that right, that all kids regardless of income have the right to a college education, that we need a tax system which in fact makes it very clear that the wealthy and large corporations are going to start paying their fare share of taxes, that we’re going to have real campaign finance reform so that the Koch brothers and other billionaires cannot buy elections, that we’re going to overturn Citizens United.’ Do you think that’s Hillary Clinton’s agenda? I don’t think so.
There is no truth to the rumor that when asked about a Sanders 2016 presidential run, Hillary said … What difference does it make!
But is Sanders really willing to run for president? More importantly as Liberland asks,” The big question is whether Sanders runs as an independent, which he is, or as a Democrat, a party with which he caucuses, but with which he many differences.” If Sanders runs as either, it will be problematic for Hillary Clinton and Democrats. If Sanders runs in the Democrat primary, Hillary will be forced to move to the LEFT to attract the base.If Sanders runs as an Independent in the general election, he will siphon the far Left vote from an establishment Hillary Clinton. We say Run Bernie, Run!!!
Personally, I agree with 0.000527% of Bernie Sanders’ agenda; however, I will give him his due and that he is an unabashed, self-proclaimed socialist. Because he stands by his beliefs and policies, no matter how wrong I think they might be, I give him kudos for standing by his socialist principles. However, after saying what he did about the need for a political revolution and Hillary not being the standard bearer of that movement, I would cry foul and bullsh*t if now Sanders did not run and instead sat back and got in line behind Hillary Clinton like a good establishment Democrat.
The reality is, these days Bernie Sanders probably represents more of what the Democrats are all about these days than Hillary Clinton. Vermont don’t stop there, let’s add former Green Mountain Gov. Howard Dean back for another run as well … YEEHAAA!!!
So you thought you could hide from Obamacare, this insidious law will eventually affect every American one was or another … Resistance is Futile.
Possibly coming to a restaurant you frequent, customers asked to help foot the bill for Obamacare healthcare increases and the not-so Affordable Healthcare Act … Gator’s Dockside, a Florida restaurant chain, is adding a 1% ACA surcharge to all of their patron’s bills in order to help pay for their increase in healthcare charges for their full time employees. Just curious, if it is so affordable, why do businesses need to further place a burden on their patrons to pay more, while receiving nothing more in return? Signs welcoming customers at the door read “The costs associated with ACA compliance could ultimately close our doors.”
click on pic to enlarge
Several restaurants in a Florida chain are asking customers to help foot the bill for Obamacare.
Diners at eight Gator’s Dockside casual eateries are finding a 1% Affordable Care Act surcharge on their tabs, which comes to 15 cents on a typical $15 lunch tab. Signs on the door and at tables alert diners to the fee, which is also listed separately on the bill.
The Gator Group’s full-time hourly employees won’t actually receive health insurance until December. But the company said it implemented the surcharge now because of the compliance costs it’s facing ahead of the Affordable Care Act’s employer mandate kicking in in 2015.
“The costs associated with ACA compliance could ultimately close our doors,” the sign reads. “Instead of raising prices on our products to generate the additional revenue needed to cover the costs of ACA compliance, certain Gator’s Dockside locations have implemented a 1% surcharge on all food and beverage purchases only.”
The Borg Obamacare … Resistance is Futile
We are reminded by the Heritage Foundation that other restaurants in California have done the same and added ACA surcharges to their bills.
What do you think happens when a new tax is forced upon a business by the feds, it gets passed on to the customer. Remember, the SCOTUS deemed Obamacare constitutional because it was a tax, even though Obama originally said to the American people that it was not. What is going to happen in the future when we find out that Obamacare is more costly than previously projected? Restaurants will have a much greater surcharge than 1%.
ABBA Admit Outrageous Outfits Were Worn To Avoid Taxes, Not Just Because of Pop Glamour Culture of the Late 70′s and Early 80′s
Who knew, wearing outrageous clothing was a tax loophole?
As reported in The Guardian, a new book, ‘The Official Photo Book,’ published to mark 40 years since ABBA won Eurovision with Waterloo, the band’s style may have been influenced by Swedish tax laws that allowed the cost of outfits to be a tax deduction, just as much as the pop culture fashion style of the late 1970′s and early 1980′s. The Swedish tax law stated that the cost of outfits could be deducted, so long as the costumes were so outrageous they could not possibly be worn on the street. Hmm, I don’t know, their outfits would have to be really over the line as people wore some pretty outrageous clothing in the 70′s. Although, I believe if anyone was caught wearing these outfits that ABBA is wearing in this rendition of Waterloo (VIDEO) in the street, they have have been strapped in a white coat.
No matter what the reason, ABBA is legendary and I hope that they can make their 40 year reunion happen.
ABBA – Waterloo Eurovision 1974
The glittering hotpants, sequined jumpsuits and platform heels that Abba wore at the peak of their fame were designed not just for the four band members to stand out – but also for tax efficiency, according to claims over the weekend.
Reflecting on the group’s sartorial record in a new book, Björn Ulvaeus said: “In my honest opinion we looked like nuts in those years. Nobody can have been as badly dressed on stage as we were.”
And the reason for their bold fashion choices lay not just in the pop glamour of the late 70s and early 80s, but also in the Swedish tax code.
What, you mean no one was wearing clothes like this in the late 70′s?
The Daily Mail: Abba admit they only wore those ridiculous outfits to avoid tax!
He said: ‘Nobody can have been as badly dressed on stage as we were. In my honest opinion we looked like nuts in those years.
But we figured people would remember us even if we finished ninth.’
Colleague Benny Andersson added: ‘I’ve never regretted any picture?.?.?. just grin and bear it.’