Citizen Held To Higher Standard Than Maryland Governor
Aug 7, 2008 Political
A Maryland man, Walter Abbott, was arrested earlier this year for sending an email to Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley threatening to “choke the life out of him. Abbott is a business owner who is losing work because of illegal immigrants. He took exception to the governor’s pro illegal immigrant stance and support for CASA de Maryland. In the email Abbott stated:
“If I ever got close enough, I’d wrap my hands around your throat and choke the life out of you, you piece of sh*t American sellout.” Baltimore Examiner
Abbott was charged with threatening a public official and conveying a threat. His initial bond was $2 million but it was reduced. He was placed on home detention and that was eventually removed and he was allowed to work, with stipulations, prior to his trial.
His trial was to begin yesterday but has now been postponed until October. Abbott faces up to six years in jail and a $5,000 fine for his threat.
Given that the Governor has police officers around him all the time, it is unlikely that Abbott could have ever acted up the threat and his claims are that he was blowing off steam over losing work because of illegals. This will play out in court as it should but is this a case of hypocrisy?
Governor Martin O’Malley is a hothead and has been known to express his anger. In fact, O’Malley made a public threat to two radio show hosts, on the air, for everyone to hear. In 2002, after a family was firebombed and killed by a drug dealer who the family had reported, O’Malley was getting beaten up by the media. He was the mayor of Baltimore at the time. He got into his car after a meeting and heard the discussion between Rob Douglas and Chip franklin then of WBAL (both have taken other jobs). He became angry and ordered his driver to take him to the studio.
O’Malley demanded to address the issue on air to the surprised staff at the station and was afforded that opportunity. He got into some heated discussions with the hosts and took particular offense when Douglas remarked that if the residents keep voting in the same nitwits year after year they get what they deserve.
O’Malley decided that after the exchange it was a good time to leave and he parted with this:
“On that note, that probably is a good way to exit,” he said. “And gentlemen, if you enjoyed that, come outside after the show, and I’ll kick your ass.” Baltimore Sun
What is the difference between this threat by a public official and the one toward a public official? O’Malley is just as wrong in threatening the show hosts as Abbott was for threatening O’Malley. O’Malley was not arrested, held on a $2 million bond, and then placed on home detention. O’Malley never faced six years in jail and a $5,000 fine. In fact, he went on to win the Gubernatorial election.
O’Malley is a public official and one expects better behavior from those elected to lead. Regardless, how can they punish Abbott for his threat while ignoring the threat of the then mayor? It is a double standard and the whole issue smacks of hypocrisy.
O’Malley has armed guards and the show hosts did not so the threat to them was even more likely to be carried out than the threat to O’Malley. If O’Malley’s defense is that it was just a comment of frustration then they must allow for that in Abbott’s case.
Personally, I wish Chip Franklin would have taken him up on the offer because I think Franklin would have beaten him half to death and shut that smug mouth of his up. I would have paid money to see Franklin kick O’Malley’s ass all over Baltimore. [Note to law enforcement: This is not a threat from me. I am merely expanding upon O’Malley’s desire for the fight and what I would like to have seen as a result of it]
I hope the defense brings this up in court. Even if it does not make much difference in the trial it would be nice to have them point out the blatant double standard and demonstrate how the elected elite get away with those things for which we are held accountable.
Tags: chip franklin, hypocrisy, maryland governor, O'Malley, rob douglas, threat, trial, wbal
Why Don’t They Just Outlaw Cigarettes?
Nov 10, 2007 Political
Only in government could we find people who will tax an unhealthy product in order to support health care. By taxing an unhealthy item, like cigarettes, to pay for health care the government is saying that it approves of the item because it brings in revenue. However, the tax is regressive and might force people to quit using tobacco products. That is great, you say? Well, yes, if the intent is to get people to quit smoking but what happens when revenue from tobacco decreases because people quit? The government runs out of money or falls short in funding a program that it has established and committed money to. That revenue shortfall will need to be made up and it will come from the taxpayer, even those who do not use tobacco.
The idea behind taxing tobacco is that tobacco users are not as healthy as non users so they should pay for the increased cost of health care. Theoretically, if people quit they will begin to get healthier so there would be no need to continue with the high health care costs. However, the government has chosen to use the tobacco tax to fund health care for children so those needy kids will not go away even if the revenue source dwindles. Therein lies one of the many problems. If tobacco users are not as healthy one would assume that the tax would pay for their care but it does not. Even if the tobacco users all quit using the product the government would have a need for the revenue. Government never removes a tax it has imposed. It just shifts the burden to other sources. The US Congress is looking at increasing the federal tobacco tax to $1.00 per pack of cigarettes. The Maryland Governor wants to increase tobacco tax for the same reasons as the feds. If all taxes take effect the cost would be $3.00 a pack in Maryland just in tax. Since the less affluent are more likely to be smokers, seems to me the less affluent will shoulder the burden for the programs paid for with tobacco tax.
Nancy Pelosi has already banned smoking in part of their office complex (but members may still smoke in their offices which is a completely different rule than for all other government employees). Now they will stop selling cigarettes in the stores located in the buildings which seems stupid when the goal is to raise money.
The government does not want people to stop using tobacco regardless of what they say because this would dry up a source of income. They play with things, they make it hard, they tax the hell out of it but they do not make it illegal. If it is so bad why not just make it illegal and be done with it? All kinds of other drugs are illegal so why not tobacco? Follow the money.
Interestingly, Congress has not raised alcohol taxes under the guise that alcohol users are less healthy than the general public. Do you suppose that is because many more elected officials use booze than tobacco? I wonder if they are allowed to drink in their offices as well. That might explain some of the behavior we see from them.
They will never raise the tax on booze as long as Ted Kennedy is in office. He would have a stroke right on the Senate floor. Hmmm, come to think of it an alcohol tax might be a good thing.
Congress needs to stop playing games and either leave tobacco users alone or make the substance illegal and put an end to all the charades. As for me, I don’t care about the tax on tobacco but I am concerned with the unintended consequences of decreased revenue when people quit. We don’t need to pay more in taxes regardless of what the Democrats say.
Source:
My Way News
Others with similar items:
Stop the ACLU, Nuke’s, Perri Nelson’s Website, 123beta, The Uncooperative Radio Show!, Stix Blog, Right Truth, The Populist, The World According to Carl, Grizzly Groundswell, The Pink Flamingo, and Adeline and Hazel, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Tags: cigarettes, health care costs, maryland governor, nancy pelosi, needy kids, quit smoking, support health care, tobacco tax, us congress