jump to navigation

Observing Hillary Clinton, 10/20/07 May 2, 2016

Posted by vsap in 2008 Presidential Election, Blogroll, Poetry, US Politics.
add a comment

This is not about you, it’s about America.

It’s not about your pant suits or relationship with Bill,

it’s about your record, your positions, and truth.

You trade honesty for pandering like boys traded

baseball cards when you were a child, but this is no game,

this is not about you, it’s about America.

It doesn’t matter if you’re the smartest woman in the world,

everyone thought that of Martha Stewart before prison,

now, like you, she has her mindless drones, her groupies,

to keep the media empire stoked, to keep the PR machine humming,

but this is not about you, it’s about America.

It doesn’t matter if you’re gay, straight or trans, what matters

is that you place the best interest of your country ahead of your own

and if you ever do, maybe it won’t seem like you’re mailing it in,

soaking us with bromides and double-speak the likes of which

make Dick and George blush and say, “oh my!” Oh, yes.

Seeking after adoration and coronation (I sound like Jesse, oh no!)

you’ve forgotten, this is not about you, it’s about America.

It must hurt that Al won the Nobel, however hollow that is,

since you have to think of something better to claim as your own

and we see you scampering for it, elusive that it is, and frankly,

there’s great amusement in watching your arms flail and your

head bob up and down in those unfamiliar waters.

Somehow people forget you’re a Chicagoan, not an Arkansas

Ridge Runner and no more a New Yorker than Bobby Kennedy.

What you’ve learned since Park Ridge has made you smug,

not humble, and in no discernible way Midwestern.

Make no mistake, this country doesn’t embrace you,

not for some personal quirks or swirling issues, but because

we know your vision is to marginalize us, to install your

peculiar brand of monarchy, and create a third-world fiefdom

of your own choosing, of your own liking. But you forget one thing:

This is not about you, it’s about America.

 

Advertisements

A “brokered convention” for the GOP? Yes. Ryan-Rubio! February 24, 2012

Posted by vsap in 2008 Presidential Election, Blogroll, Uncategorized, US Politics.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
2 comments

Let’s start at the beginning. What is a brokered convention? A “good enough” answer is found on Wikipedia:

“A brokered convention is a situation in United States politics in which there are not enough delegates ‘won’ during the presidential primary and caucus elections for a single candidate to have a pre-existing majority, during the first official vote for a political party’s presidential candidate at its nominating convention.”

You don’t have to believe me but I urge you to believe the facts. In Gwinnett County, GA, arguably the most conservative bastion of the GOP in the state located in an urban/suburban setting, Ron Paul won the straw vote among precinct captains and their legions, some 400 in attendance last week. That is total nonsense. Even if you want to believe that is a haven for the Neal Boortz/John Linder/Rob Woodall brand of Fair Tax, it is also a birthplace of the Tea Party that helped sweep the GOP to a majority in Congress in 2010. And, US Rep Woodall is no Libertarian…and neither is Boortz, really, but that’s an argument or another time.

The point is this: Gwinnett County Republicans do not want Ron Paul as their presidential nominee. They, like most others in the US, don’t know what they want. Or, more to the point, they haven’t seen what they want yet.

Here’s my short takes on the short list:

Mitt Romney – Centrist who likely can’t “out-center” President Obama. As with the two George Bushes, this guy is no conservative, even if you like his business and political cred.

Rick Santorum – Couldn’t get re-elected as Senator in PA. That should be enough said, but Tea Partiers and social conservatives still want a “dog in the hunt”. Well, they have a smelly one in Rick.

Newt – Smartest guy in the room. The guy you want to debate a know-nothing like Obama and show him for what he is. But, he is either too smarmy, esoteric or academic to have the warmth of either Romney or Paul. For all his attributes: unelectable.

Ron Paul – The Dennis Kucinich of the GOP. The “crazy uncle” in the room that you enjoy for entertainment value and, sometimes, keeping the others honest. Isolationism is an old Libertarian idea that isn’t worthy any comment today…along with the majority of what Paul says.

From this perspective, what alternative is there to a brokered convention? Karl Rove argues that the GOP simply won’t have one. Someone, possibly someone not in the race this very day, will emerge and the there will be sufficient support to sweep that candidate to victory…with ALL of us on the bus. After all, the goal is to defeat Obama, not beat each other up. This is supposed to be our “Reagan vs. Carter moment”…we can’t possibly lose. Right?

Unfortunately, we have no Ronald Reagan at this moment to be the obvious choice against an inept president and administration. I was hoping that someone would emerge, quickly, after the 2010 election, be the “900-pound gorilla” that would incessantly beat up on the sitting president so that when 2012 rolled around, the debates would be minimal, the squabbles petty, and the victory assured well before the convention and a foregone conclusion by November. No such fortune has befallen the GOP.

Here’s Rove’s take:

“A brokered convention would see a new candidate — someone other than Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, Mitt Romney or Rick Santorum — enter the remaining primaries or parachute in during the convention (if no existing candidate has secured a majority of delegates). In backroom deals, either based partly on the strength of his late primary performances or only on the discretion of party leaders, he would become the nominee.

A contested convention, on the other hand, would see no dark horse enter but none of the existing candidates arrive in Tampa with a 1,144 majority of delegates. Lots of wheeling and dealing would ensue, and after several ballots a nominee would emerge from the four current candidates.

Is either scenario likely? Let’s put it this way: The odds are greater that there’s life on Pluto than that the GOP has a brokered convention. And while there’s a better chance of a contested convention, it’s still highly unlikely.”

The upshot? Rove concludes:

If a new candidate gets all the winner-takes-all delegates (unlikely since 222 in California and New Jersey are awarded by congressional district, not statewide), plus half those awarded proportionally, he still would have just 378 delegates of the 1,144 needed for nomination. At least two current candidates are likely to have far more. Why would they step aside for a newcomer?”

It is hard to argue with Karl Rove’s math. And you almost hope he’s right when you read Dave Boyer in the Washington Times:

“New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie is the top choice of Republicans if the party nominates its presidential candidate at a “brokered” convention this summer, according to a Quinnipiac University national poll released Wednesday.

Mr. Christie is favored by 32 percent of Republicans, followed by former Govs. Sarah Palin of Alaska and Jeb Bush of Florida with 20 percent each, the poll found. Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels is fourth at 15 percent.”

Say what? That’s a handful of non-starters that make Ron Paul look credible.

It’s worth noting the history lesson provided by Don Gizzi on Human Events recently:

“The last time a brokered convention happened for Republicans was in 1940.  At that time there were a dozen primaries, compared to the thirty-plus of 2012. Most of them were held closer to the convention rather than “front-loaded” by states in January or February.  The bulk of delegates were picked in caucuses or conventions run by state party organizations and more of them came to the convention in Philadelphia uncommitted to any candidate than committed.

The easy winner in most of the primaries was Thomas E. Dewey, 38-year-old district attorney of Manhattan and a true “celebrity crimebuster” in the mold of Elliot Ness and Rudy Giuliani.  He rolled up nearly 49.9 percent of the votes cast in primaries over three heavyweight opponents: Ohio Sen. Robert Taft, the conservative favorite and son of a President; Michigan Sen. Arthur Vandenburg, the GOP’s top point man on foreign policy; and Wendell Willkie, New York “superlawyer” who had neither held nor sought elective office and had until recently been a Democrat (and freely admitted he had voted for President Franklin D. Roosevelt).

On May 8, one poll showed Dewey supported by 67 percent of likely Republican voters and 3 percent favoring Willkie (who never won a single primary and in fact got only a miniscule 21,170 votes in the primaries).  But many party leaders and influential business and opinion leaders (notably Time-Life publisher Henry Luce) felt that Dewey’s youth would be a detriment to the GOP as war continued in Europe and Asia.  Moreover, as the lone internationalist in the race, Willkie stood out from the other three, all of whom were non-interventionists in the growing World War.

“Back then, conventions actually chose candidates instead of ratifying the verdict of primaries,” Charles Peters wrote in his epic account of the convention Five Days in Philadelphia. “Modern conventions are shorter because their results have been pre-determined by primaries.”  He also pointed out that “[i]n 1940, security was lax to the point of non-existence and no one has figured out how many standing room tickets were distributed by Willkie’s man, [convention chairman] Sam Pryor.”  So with people such as 26-year-old Gerald Ford in the galleries cheering “We Want Willkie!,” radio listeners and delegates had the sensation of a groundswell of support.

It took six ballots but Wendell Willkie became the Republican nominee.  The rules of the time had been tailor-made for political powers to snatch nomination from a candidate who had competed in and won primaries and give it to someone who had not won a single primary.

Today, they are not.  And, with so many new factions in the Republican Party—from cultural conservatives to the “Tea Party”– one has to wonder just who would do the “brokering” at a brokered convention?

Willkie lost to FDR in his historic third term bid that fall.

When I tweeted the fact that Willkie was the last Republican nominee who had never won a primary, my friend and colleague Philippa Thomas of the BBC responded most poignantly:  “A warning not to ignore the grass-roots, you think?”

Again, hard to disagree with the cold, hard facts BUT I still believe that delegates will arrive in Tampa without a consensus…except to defeat Obama.

The question remains: Where is the Tom Dewey or Ronald Reagan for 2012? I certainly don’t see one and, according to the Gwinnett County, GA, GOP, they don’t have one, either. The almost tongue-in-cheek straw pole demonstrates the divide that needs to be bridged in order for the entire GOP to get behind their nominee full-force. We will not win with the lukewarm effort placed against a lukewarm candidate in 2008.

Here is who could take a brokered convention:

Paul Ryan (WI), for president and Marco Rubio (FL) for vice-president.

Setting aside the fact that neither have shown interest, they will if their party calls. A combination of youth, enthusiasm and smarts that could bring out the center and young to rally and sweep the GOP into the White House. Plus, they have the conservative cred to make the Tea party and social conservatives comfortable as well as the more moderate business elite. If handsome means anything, then you will get the attention of women voters. And, you may net a few more Hispanics in the deal. I realize it sounds too simple to be achieved, but sometimes you have to strip the complexity away to get to reach the objective.

To release Obama-Biden to the college and book-signing tours, elect Ryan-Rubio!

PresBO as Centrist? Say it ain’t so! April 26, 2011

Posted by vsap in 2008 Presidential Election, Blogroll, US Politics.
Tags: ,
4 comments

David Gerwitz, on ZDNet Government (April 25, 2011), ostensibly speaking for/to “techies”, makes some sobering observations about PresBO:

“Mr. Obama has had a decidedly uninspiring presidency, from a health care reform victory where the cure is probably worse than the disease, to a new third war, to a jobs situation still in the crapper, to issues of privacy, security, and TSA indignities.

“Only history will be able to tell whether President Obama’s moves after the 2009 financial crisis turned things around that would have otherwise led to another Great Depression. But we all have experienced the Great Recession and Obama-the-President is far more universally disappointing than Obama-the-Campaigner.”

Now, I can’t pretend to know if “techies”, young and old, are pre-disposed to supporting the President or not, but it seems odd to read these words from this corner of the known universe. Mr. Gerwitz concludes:

“Barack Obama’s a tough read. It’s honestly hard to tell whether he’s been good at his job or horrific. That’s his fault. Because while it’s very difficult to tangibly determine whether we’d have been better off with Mr. McCain than Mr. Obama these last few years, it’s absolutely clear that Barack Obama has dropped the ball when it comes to inspiring the world.

“And that, more than anything else, may well be Barack Obama’s most serious strategic mistake.”

Mr. Gerwitz’s indictment is not a whispered sentiment any longer. It’s out there. Conservatives and most Republicans have said and written these sorts of things long before a reasonable assessment could be made of this President. The same was true in the early Reagan presidency: liberals vilified him from the moment he took the oath of office. So, let’s cast off those we know oppose this President and his policies in favor of those voices which first fell in love with “Obama-the-Campaigner” and fell out of love with “Obama-as-President”.

Michael Gerson wrote in The Washington Post on April 11, 2011:

“Intentional or not, it sizzled with symbolism that President Obama announced his reelection campaign the same day his administration threw in the towel on the closing of Guantanamo Bay. Attorney General Eric Holder announced that Khalid Sheik Mohammed and four others would be tried by a military tribunal at the prison Obama once described as a violation of “core constitutional values.” A central pledge of one campaign was abandoned to kick off the next.

“This reversal was soon followed by a budget agreement that Obama described as the “largest annual spending cut in history” — leaving his progressive base wounded and abandoned on the budget battlefield. The man that liberals elected to complete the work of Lyndon Johnson had suddenly adopted the idiom of Ronald Reagan.”

PresBO, desperate for a second term, has resorted to do anything strategy to win. But, it seems the only one he is fooling is himself.

Mr. Gerson continues:

“The overall strategy of projecting a centrist pragmatism is probably a good one. Though Obama has seen some recent erosion in support among African Americans and Hispanics, his approval among liberals is steady in the 70s. At a comparable point in his presidency, Bill Clinton’s liberal support was in the mid-60s. Even as the professional left registers feeble protests to Obama’s ideological evolution, nothing seems to shake the faith of progressive voters. They can be safely taken for granted.

“In contrast, Obama’s approval among independents has dropped 23 points since he took office. Democrats lost this group by a 56-to-37-point margin in November. There is no reelection without reversing this trend.”

Independents, in love with “Obama-the-Campaigner” have fallen out fo love with “Obama-the-President”.

Another April 11 analysis was published by Clay Waters:

“Obama the centrist? That’s the takeaway from New York Times reporter Jeff Zeleny’s Sunday “news analysis,” “President Adopts a Measured Course to Recapture the Middle.” The original online headline was even more misleading: “President Obama Adopts Centrist Approach.”
Actually, Zeleny has considered Obama centrist, or at least a “pragmatist,” from his first year in office, well before the 2010 election. Here’s Zeleny on Obama the pragmatist in December 2009: “He delivered a mix of realism and idealism….he continued a pattern evident throughout his public career of favoring pragmatism over absolutes.”
That’s just weird, even for The New York Times. Michael Barone, after the President’s speech on April 12, wrote this for The Washington Examiner:

“Not just weak but pitiful,” “devoid of detail,” “a waste of breath.” Those were among the reactions of The Atlantic’s Clive Crook to Obama’s speech this afternoon. Crook is no Republican partisan; he calls House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s budget plan “no good.” But he is dismayed that “the administration still lacks a rival plan,” and that, as he puts it in his penultimate sentence, “the speech was more notable for its militant—though ineffectual—hostility to Republican proposals than for any fresh thinking of its own.”

What’s particularly pitiful here is that Barack Obama, with the full resources of the Office of Management and the Budget (a first-rate public bureaucracy) available to him, was able to do no better than this. But then I gather he didn’t get all the asbestos out of the John P. Altgeld housing project in Chicago either.”

Daniel Strauss, from The Hill, on February 5, 2011, shows that even the President’s opposition in the 2008 election is coming around:

“The president has become more centrist, which makes him easier to work with, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said Thursday.

“Speaking with Bloomberg Television a day after a private meeting with President Obama, McCain said he could picture working with Obama on several issues going forward.

“I think there’s a number of issues we could work on together, and I think it’s pretty clear that the president has really pivoted to a much more centrist position, which I think makes it much more for us easier to work with him,” McCain said.”

Oh boy! So much to look forward to now!

As early as April 28,2010, J. Bradford DeLong opined for The Economist:

“On healthcare reform, Obama’s proudest moment, his achievement is…drum roll…a scheme that almost precisely mimics the reform that Mitt Romney, a Republican who sought the presidency in 2008, brought to the state of Massachusetts. The reform’s centerpiece is a requirement imposed by the government that people choose responsibly and provide themselves with insurance – albeit with the government willing to subsidize the poor and strengthen the bargaining power of the weak.

“In all of these cases, Obama is ruling, or trying to rule, by taking positions that are at the technocratic good-government center, and then taking two steps to the right – sacrificing some important policy goals – in the hope of attracting Republican votes and thereby demonstrating his commitment to bipartisanship. On all of these policies – anti-recession, banking, fiscal, environmental, anti-discrimination, rule of law, healthcare – you could close your eyes and convince yourself that, at least as far as the substance is concerned, Obama is in fact a moderate Republican named George H.W. Bush, Mitt Romney, John McCain, or Colin Powell.

“Now, don’t get me wrong. My complaints about Obama are not that he is too bipartisan or too centrist. I am at bottom a weak-tea Dewey-Eisenhower-Rockefeller social democrat – that is, with a small “s” and a small “d.” My complaints are that he is not technocratic enough, that he is pursuing the chimera of “bipartisanship” too far, and that, as a result, many of his policies will not work well, or at all.”

And, if the election of 2010 is any indication, it hasn’t worked at all…and it is getting worse for PresBO as time marches on. yet, even before this, on January 22, 2010, Jon Meachem, in Newsweek opined:

“Obama is essentially a centrist. His world view cannot be easily consigned to the familiar categories of left and right. In fact, those categories have been obsolescent since George W. Bush effectively nationalized the banks and Obama won the nomination on a center-right cultural platform. No matter how simplistic competing cable networks try to make things, when you have a Republican president behaving like a European socialist and a Democratic president who opposes gay marriage and has added troops to Afghanistan, you are living in a volatile ideological age.
“…He has grandly failed so far in doing what presidents must do, which is to lead the nation emotionally as well as rationally. It would be great if politics were fact-based, but it is not, and it is surely not nuance-based. What works in a classroom or a think tank does not work on Capitol Hill or in the White House. Obama sometimes seems to be running the Brookings Institution, not the country.
“Like all of us, Obama has the vices of his virtues. He is cool and steady, but can seem cold and remote. He is thoughtful and thorough, but can appear eggheady and out of it. He appeals to the intellect, but often fails to make the visceral case for something. The question now is whether his presidency has simply hit one of those unavoidable grim moments when nothing seems to go right (such moments come to every White House) or whether a tactical shift could improve his chances of accomplishing more of what he wants to do.”
In short, it would appear he is unfit for the center, even as the arguments mount in favor of that change.
Then there’s this blog post from Jared William (May 29, 2010) regarding a discussion he was having with his friend Tim about Obama education policy:
“When Obama was just about to overtake Clinton in terms of national favor, we had a debate that covered many things, but my primary argument was that people, when looking – actually looking – at Obama’s policies, would see him for what he is – a middling, almost cowardly centrist who would get little done and had no truly progressive ideas.”
Even an “everyman” blogger could see through the veneer of “Obama-the-Campaigner” as it flaked and peeled to reveal “Obama-the-President”.
While belittling the liberal media is a hobby of mine, the truth is always stranger than fiction, as pointed out by Barry Secrest on February 7, 2011:
“Time’s Mark Halperin has hailed Obama as “magnetic,” “distinguished,” and “inspiring” – )n one story. ABC’s Christiane Amanpour saw “Reaganesque” optimism and “Kennedyesque” encouragement – all in one speech. Howard Fineman, the former Newsweek columnist who now writes for the Huffington Post, said conductor Obama was now leading a “love train” through D.C.”
Wow! There’s objectivity you want from your news coverage! All of this to lead you to believe PresBO is alright. He is not a European-style socialist soft on jihad and anti-business. I’m still looking for evidence that those assertions are wrong. But, this isn’t about me. it’s about whether or not the president can fool enough people into believing he is centrist so achieve re-election.
So, let’s conclude with Dana Millbank, from The Everett (WA) Post, April 14, 2011, from a opine piece entitled “Obama claims his centrist birthright”:
“Though he occasionally struggled against his congenital reasonableness during his first two years in office, Obama blessing the debt commission’s bipartisan product of spending cuts and tax increases confirms him as a born moderate.”His embrace of the compromise debt proposal — and of the effort by the Gang of Six senators to put something like it into legislation — will be considered apostasy by true believers on both sides. But it dramatically increases the likelihood that Washington will solve its debt problem — and it strongly allies Obama with the independent voters who will determine the outcome of the 2012 presidential election.

Obama’s embrace of Bowles-Simpson will open a new rift with his supporters on the left, including the Campaign for America’s Future, which has already begun an e-mail campaign, and the columnist Paul Krugman, who accuses Obama of defining “the center as being somewhere between the right and the far right.””White House officials were not deterred by the critique. “We’re accustomed to it,” one said. “This is about economic realities, not politics.”

House Democrats further strengthened Obama’s position by offering a budget proposal that relies more on tax increases. That leaves Obama alone in the political center — in a perfect place to triangulate. For a born moderate, there is no cozier place to call home.”

Egad!

PresBO is a Statist and it’s worse than you think August 22, 2010

Posted by vsap in 2008 Presidential Election, Blogroll, Financial Crisis, Uncategorized, US Politics.
Tags: , ,
3 comments

Today, our nation is being run by Statists. If you are unsure what this means, Wikipedia gives you a glimpse (bold is mine):

“Statism (or etatism) is a term assigned to political movements and trends that are seen as supporting the use of states (nations) to achieve goals, both economic and social. Economic statism, for instance, promotes the view that the state has a major and legitimate role in directing the economy, either directly through state-owned enterprises and other types of machinery of government, or indirectly through economic planning. It may refer to the ideology of statism that holds that: Sovereignty is vested not in the people but in the national state, and that all individuals and associations exist only to enhance the power, the prestige, and the well-being of the state. The concept of statism, which as seen as synonymous with the concept of nation, and corporatism repudiates individualism and exalts the nation as an organic body headed by the Supreme Leader and nurtured by unity, force, and discipline.”

For those squeamish about calling PresBO a socialist, it may be more accurate or politically correct to call him a Statist. He can say what he likes, spin it however David Axelrod prefers, but PresBO is a statist.

Edward Crane, of the CATO Institute, put it this way on April 29, 2009:

“Pres. Barack Obama is not a socialist. He is a thoroughgoing statist, perhaps the worst in American history. And with Wilson, FDR, and LBJ, he’s got some serious competition…

“There is a reason sales of Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged are going through the roof. The book is nothing if not prescient. The “Troubled Assets Relief Program” is straight from its pages. Monday’s New York Times front page suggests Atlas may be starting to shrug. “Doctor Shortage Proves Obstacle to Obama Goals,” laments the headline. Hmm. Wonder why there would be a doctor shortage in the face of nationalized health care? Perhaps bright young people considering a career don’t want to work for the federal bureaucracy?

“Time for those conservatives serious about limited government to re-read Goldwater’s Conscience of a Conservative.”

Mark Levin, in his 2009 book “Liberty and Tyranny” lays it out this way:

“The Modern Liberal believes in the supremacy of the state…. For the Modern Liberal, the individual’s imperfection and personal pursuits impede the objectives of a utopian state. In this, Modern Liberalism promotes what French Historian Alexis de Tocqueville called soft tyranny, which becomes increasingly more oppressive, partially leading to hard tyranny…. As the word “liberal” is, in its classical meaning, the opposite of authoritarian, it is more accurate, therefore, to characterize the Modern Liberal as a Statist.” – (p.4)

Again in April 2009, Orson Bean (yes, the actor) commented on the Big Hollywood Blog:

“Levin’s book is the equivalent of a popular college course in conservatism. Strict adherence to the Founding Fathers’ words are necessary, in his view, to be able to call oneself a genuine conservative. He has withering scorn for neo-conservatives, whom he regards as wolves in sheep’s clothing. His word for the liberal is Statist, a term he uses over and over until it begins to sound like an ugly epithet. “The state will take care of me,” is the mantra of the leftist, as Levin describes him, but as a bronco once broken discovers, there’s a heavy price to be paid.”

To the contrary, on August 29, 2009, Conor Friedersdorf, on The Daily Dish blog commented:

“It is difficult to overemphasize how important that paragraph [the one previously quoted from Levin’s book] is to the balance of Mr. Levin’s book, and his entire intellectual oeuvre. The United States that he comments on isn’t one that pits Republicans against Democrats, or conservatives against liberals, or the center right against the center left, or where citizens of complicated political persuasions — mixing ideology, pragmatism and ignorance — do some combination of participating in politics and ignoring it. Instead Mark Levin’s America is one where the conservatives are pitted against the Statists, or to put things as he would, where liberty is pitted against tyranny.

“…Terrible as he sounds, The Statist that Mr. Levin describes—his ill deeds keep growing as the book winds down–would at least play a clarifying role in American politics if he actually existed. Imagine how useful a blueprint Mr. Levin’s book would prove if the primary opponents of conservatives were actually cunning Statists with malign motives and hatred of liberty in their hearts. But re-read all the attributes that describe the Statist. Does anyone in American politics fit that description, let alone a plurality sizable enough to enact their agenda?”

Mr. Friedersdorf’s answer is, of course, no.

Salvo magazine reviewer Terrell Clemons offered this in the Autumn 2009 edition:

“The inexorable culmination of statism is tyranny. For statists, government interventions are required to perfect society. Capitalizing on human imperfections, the statist, who has an insatiable appetite for control, stirs up grievances. Then, in classic divide-and-conquer mode, he poses as a champion or savior for one “oppressed” group while reviling another, all along camouflaging the reality that both groups’ liberties are being gradually subjugated to the insuperable authority of the state.

“Statism behaves like a false messiah. The statist “veils his pursuits in moral indignation, intoning . . . injustices and inequities . . . for which only he can provide justice and bring a righteous resolution,” Levin writes. “And when the resolution proves elusive, as it undoubtedly does . . . the Statist demands ever more authority to wring out the imperfections of mankind’s existence.” Unopposed, he exhibits the traits of a megalomaniac.”

If this doesn’t sound like PresBO, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod, et al, I can’t find a more apt description.

Do the research and you will discover that in November 2008 the majority turned the nation over to Statists. The correction will begin in November 2010 and, by God’s grace, end with the ousting of PresBO in the November 2012 election.

Pray every day for this nation!

We don’t like PresBO’s health care reform cause he’s black! February 26, 2010

Posted by vsap in 2008 Presidential Election, Blogroll, Financial Crisis, Uncategorized, US Politics.
Tags: , ,
1 comment so far

Well, it’s Black History Month so we might as well get it out there. We simply don’t support the president’s health care reform because he’s black.

And if you think that’s preposterous, and it is, then you have to believe the farcical television spectacle, hosted by the President, was equally preposterous.

Also, we didn’t like the first attempt to overhaul health care because it was spearheaded by a woman – Hillary Clinton.

So, there, it’s out there now. Americans don’t like what blacks or women have to say about health care and they should just go away. Find another issue to wring hands over, sweat, and palpitate until they’re red-faced.

Today’s televised farce was promised at the outset. But truth is of little concern to this President. Surrounded by leftists, socialists, and worse, this President revels in “running the show” but knows nothing of administration.

He is disingenuous in chiding Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) about the campaign being over because the campaign has never been over for this President. As a matter of fact, if it weren’t for his constant campaigning or campaign-like speeches, there would be nothing to report on this empty suit.

“Do you miss me yet?” says a smiling George W. Bush from a billboard running around the email circuit recently. As a conservative, I must admit that even a centrist Republican would be preferable to the “government first, last and always” administration in power today.

I sincerely believed Jimmy Carter was the worst President I had ever experienced…until Barack Obama…and that’s just a little more than a year in. It took nearly twice the time to figure Carter was a dote.

Do elections have consequences? You’re living the nightmare today.

So, in having vilified blacks and women on health care, what group actually makes the most sense on this issue? Old white guys. Not Harry Reid, Dick Durbin or Barney Frank. They don’t count. They and their ilk sold out their bonafides years ago. It’s just now you notice it since they hold the national stage. No, the old white guys are John McCain, Mitch McConnell, Eric Cantor, Saxby Chambliss and any blue dog Democrat who knows better than to side with the rabid left in destroying the best health care system in the world regardless of its flaws.

Start over, Mr. President. If you’re pretty sure you’re not wrong, you sure have been listening to too many Kool-Aid drinkers who don’t have a clue about what’s happening in the real America.

You, Mr. President, don’t know what’s happening in real America. You believe government can handle more than 15% of our economy. You believe government is the answer to every aspect of our lives and it simply is not the case. For all you know, it’s what you don’t know that’s most dangerous to us all. You don’t know how to govern. All you know how to do is campaign.

Indeed, the campaign is over, Mr. President. You need to figure out how to govern. In the Seventies Illinois elected a populist, Dan Walker. Walked the state. Looked good. Couldn’t govern. Served one term. Joe Teasdale in Missouri. Same thing. Could tickle the ear but didn’t know what to do with the office once he occupied it. Served one term.

My sincere hope is that your fate is the same, Mr. President. One term and you can go out on the lecture circuit, talk about how tough it was to create the hope and change you believed in, to adoring crowds, a la Al Gore.

We won’t let the door hit your butt on the way out.

We need problem-solving leaders February 4, 2010

Posted by vsap in 2008 Presidential Election, Blogroll, Uncategorized, US Politics.
add a comment

I want to take a moment to clarify a few things:

We are at war.

Profiling is not wrong. Deporting illegals is not wrong. Destroying your enemy and asking questions later is not wrong. Torturing one enemy in order to save one or more American lives is not wrong. Bringing the battle to the enemy where they live so it doesn’t need to be fought on American soil is not wrong.

The old saw is still true: If you find a cockroach in your house, you kill it. You do not negotiate with it. You do not attempt to peacefully co-exist. You do not ignore it. You kill it, and all others of its kind with it, and the problem is solved.

We need problem-solving leaders.

We have leading this great nation, right now, hand-wringing, bed-wetting, egotists enamored with ideas like socialism and communism which are proven failures. We have leaders who are bent on making America no different than the Europeans, Chinese, or, worse, any other tin-horn African dictatorship. There is something dreadfully wrong with that kind of leadership.

Also, we have a leadership that believes that government-created jobs will answer our current unemployment problem. That is wrong. Private business needs more customers, not more government interference. When people feel more confident about keeping their jobs, they will spend. They will become the customers needed to drive the economy. If they work in the private sector, they will not be artificially supported by government make-work jobs that should not be the long term solution to our short term challenge. In brief, these kinds of jobs become the long term problem we need to avoid.

We have seen how people have “played” the stimulus or recovery act game. No jobs added, just none lost, which is recorded as a “plus”. There is recovery act money that will not begin to be spent until 2011. That’s not tremendously helpful. It’s another ignorant, left-wing payoff to government employee unions and other “community action” groups.

How many pimps can ACORN hire to run the census in your neighborhood? Enough to change the character to one more amenable to the entitlement class.

Then, what of taxing high-bracket earners into the UK taxation realm? I thought that was one reason “we” shipped out of merry old England and fought to become an independent nation. Taxation without representation is rampant today.

Then, there’s PresBO who wants to take some of what Joe the plumber has and give it to the entitlement class that has not and will not attempt an honest day’s labor in their lives. PresBO needs sufficient teets for his friends to suckle.

I’ll say it again:

The old saw is still true: If you find a cockroach in your house, you kill it. You do not negotiate with it. You do not attempt to peacefully co-exist. you do not ignore it. You kill it, and all others of its kind with it, and the problem is solved.

We need problem-solving leaders. Cockroach-killers. Not rhetorical gymnasts.

Why Dems don’t understand the shift away from their health care “reform” November 22, 2009

Posted by vsap in 2008 Presidential Election, Blogroll, Financial Crisis, Uncategorized, US Politics.
Tags: ,
add a comment

Newt Gingrich doesn’t need my help to get the message out about health care, but here it is, an excerpt  from his recent email:

A Stunning 22 Point Shift Away From Government Responsibility for Health Care

Polling data released last week by Gallup show a startling shift in public opinion: President Obama and Speaker Pelosi are actually convincing the country to rethink their attitudes and move toward the right and away from government solutions in health care (the same seems to be happening on spending, taxes, and how to create jobs, but that will be a future newsletter). Gallup’s annual poll on health issues (taken every November) shows public opinion shifting against the values of the Left and in favor of the personal responsibility, limited government model which has defined America for 240 years (since the founding decade of the 1770s). Gallup reports a stunning shift of 22% of all Americans who have moved from believing government is responsible for health care to believing health care is a personal responsibility.

One Out of Every Four Americans Have Changed Their Minds on Health Care

That means nearly one out of every four Americans have changed their minds on a fundamental question of who is responsible for health care. This is one of the largest shifts of its kind in such a short period in modern history. The survey shows that even after the 2008 presidential campaign and the Obama Administration’s concerted effort to sell government health care, support for non-government responsibility is at an all time high. In fact, for the first time in the decade that Gallup has asked the question, the survey found that more Americans (50%) favor non-government responsibility than believe it is a government responsibility (47%). The high watermark for the Left’s belief in collective responsibility through government was in November 2006 when by a 69-to-28 margin Americans said health care was a government responsibility (the choice is actually worded government versus nongovernment responsibility). Thus in November 2006, partially in reaction to Republican failures and the absence of a coherent conservative message, nearly 7 out of every 10 Americans had chosen government responsibility for health care.

The Shift Away from Government Health Care was Actually Fueled By the Campaign

But November 2006 was when support for government health care peaked. The shift away from government and towards non-government responsibility was actually fueled by the presidential campaign. In the November 2008 survey Gallup found support for government responsibility had already dropped to 54% and support for non-government responsibility had risen to 41%. That meant there had been a 7% drop in support for government and a 9% increase in support for non-government responsibility in health care even during the presidential campaign – a campaign in which we were told candidate Obama was very articulate and charismatic and candidate McCain was not very effective. Yet the power of the culture seemed to be outweighing the articulateness of the candidate who was advocating the wrong position. As President, Barack Obama’s effort to articulate the case for government responsibility has seen support for government erode another 7% and support for a nongovernmental responsibility rise another 9%. At this rate, after another year of the health debate, the American people will have decisively rejected government as a system for solutions.

Why Democrats Don’t Understand the Shift

Within the Gallup data there are very important clues as to why President Obama, Speaker Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid do not understand what is happening. Whereas 22% of the country has shifted from government to non-government responsibility in health care, among Democrats support for government remains strong. Democrats’ belief in government responsibility peaked at 87% in 2007. That meant there was virtually no opposition among Democrats to government-run health care. Even today, when 22% of the American people have shifted away from government, Democrats remain firmly in favor with 74% favoring government responsibility and only 23% favoring non-government responsibility (among Republicans the numbers are now reversed at 21% government and 77% non-government). So even today three out of four Democrats would reinforce what is now a declining position among the American people.

Keep the Current System or Replace It

A similar shift in public opinion is underway on the question of whether to keep the current health system or replace it. Today a vast majority (61 to 32) favor keeping the current system rather than replacing it. The margin among the two parties again reflects this schizophrenia about policies and values.While 86% of Republicans favor maintaining the current system and only 11% favor replacing it, among Democrats the results are very different. Democrats favor replacing the current system by 56 to 35.

Losing Independents, Losing the Country, Losing the Next Election

What these data show is that the Obama Administration and the congressional Democrats are losing the argument with independents, eroding support among their own party and consolidating Republicans into a firmly anti-government position. This trend suggests that another year of debate over the Left’s values, plans and policies will consolidate the center-right majority and lead to a crushing defeat for the Democratic Congress. Two more years of debate on this pattern would make President Obama a one-term President. It will be interesting to see if anyone in the White House reads Gallup data. It will be interesting to see if anyone in the White House listens to the American people.

Americans are probably going to become even more critical of government and supportive of nongovernmental solutions

As the country learns more about government incompetence as a delivery system (read Jim Frogue’s Stop Paying the Crooks) , the H1N1 flu vaccine fiasco and other failures, people will continue to move away from reliance on government.

As Americans think through the economic crisis (10.2% unemployment and growing), the Chinese ownership of $2 trillion in United States debt, the rising state government deficit (going up from $112 billion in 2009 to $134 billion in 2010), and the reactionary unwillingness to reform many of the public employee unions, they will become even more skeptical of turning problems over to government.

The final result of the debates President Obama is sparking may be a nation which polarizes 75 to 25 in favor of nongovernmental responsibility, turning to personal, corporate, nonprofit or faith-based institutions instead of government for solutions.

This would be a grand irony. But the Gallup data show an underlying pattern that should hearten conservatives and demoralize liberals.

Couldn’t say it better myself. Thanks Newt!

Krauthammer nails it (again) September 22, 2009

Posted by vsap in 2008 Presidential Election, Blogroll, Financial Crisis, Uncategorized, US Politics.
Tags: , , ,
1 comment so far

Dr. Charles Krauthammer is a Fox News contributor and syndicated columnist. He is an M.D. and a lawyer. He is paralyzed from the neck down.

A friend went to hear Charles Krauthammer. He said:

“Last Monday was a profound evening, Dr. Charles Krauthammer spoke to the Center for the American Experiment. He is a brilliant intellectual, seasoned & articulate. He is forthright and careful in his analysis, and never resorts to emotions or personal insults. He is NOT a fear monger nor an extremist in his comments and views. He is a fiscal conservative, and has received a Pulitzer Prize for writing. He is a frequent contributor to Fox News and writes weekly for the Washington Post. The entire room was held spellbound during his talk.

I have summarized his comments, as we are living in uncharted waters economically and internationally. Even 2 Democrats at my table agreed with everything he said!

1. Mr. Obama is a very intellectual, charming individual. He is not to be underestimated. He is a cool customer who doesn’t show his emotions. It’s very hard to know what’s behind the mask. The taking down of the Clinton dynasty was an amazing accomplishment. The Clintons still do not understand what hit them. Obama was in the perfect place at the perfect time.

2. Obama has political skills comparable to Reagan and Clinton . He has a way of making you think he’s on your side, agreeing with your position, while doing the opposite. Pay no attention to what he SAYS; rather, watch what he DOES!

3. Obama has a ruthless quest for power. He did not come to Washington to make something out of himself, but rather to change everything, including dismantling capitalism. He can’t be straightforward on his ambitions, as the public would not go along. He has a heavy hand, and wants to level the playing field with income redistribution and punishment to the achievers of society. He would like to model the USA to Great Britain or Canada .

4. His three main goals are to control ENERGY, PUBLIC EDUCATION, and NATIONAL HEALTHCARE by the Federal government. He doesn’t care about the auto or financial services industries, but got them as an early bonus. The cap and trade will add costs to everything and stifle growth. Paying for FREE college education is his goal. Most scary is his healthcare program, because if you make it FREE and add 46,000,000 people to a Medicare-type single-payer system, the costs will go through the roof. The only way to control costs is with massive RATIONING of services, like in Canada . God forbid!

5. He (Obama) has surrounded himself with mostly far-left academic types. No one around him has ever even run a candy store. But they are going to try and run the auto, financial, banking and other industries. This obviously can’t work in the long run. Obama is not a socialist; rather he’s a far-left secular progressive bent on nothing short of revolution. He ran as a moderate, but will govern from the hard left. Again, watch what he does, not what he says.

6. Obama doesn’t really see himself as President of the United States, but more as a ruler over the world. He sees himself above it all, trying to orchestrate & coordinate various countries and their agendas. He sees moral equivalency in all cultures. His apology tour in Germany and England was a prime example of how he sees America , as an imperialist nation that has been arrogant, rather than a great noble nation that has at times made errors. This is the first President ever who has chastised our allies and appeased our enemies!

7. He (Obama) is now handing out goodies. He hopes that the bill (and pain) will not come due until after he is reelected in 2012. He would like to blame all problems on Bush from the past, and hopefully his successor in the future. He has a huge ego, and Dr. Krauthammer believes he is a narcissist.

8. Republicans are in the wilderness for a while, but will emerge strong. Republicans are pining for another Reagan, but there will never be another like him. Krauthammer believes Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty & Bobby Jindahl (except for his terrible speech in February) are the future of the party. Newt Gingrich is brilliant, but has baggage. Sarah Palin is sincere and intelligent, but needs to really be seriously boning up on facts and info if she is to be a serious candidate in the future. We need to return to the party of lower taxes, smaller government, personal responsibility, strong national defense, and state’s rights.

9. The current level of spending is irresponsible and outrageous. We are spending trillions that we don’t have. This could lead to hyperinflation, depression or worse. No country has ever spent themselves into prosperity. The media is giving Obama, Reid and Pelosi a pass because they love their agenda. But eventually the bill will come due and people will realize the huge bailouts didn’t work, nor will the stimulus package.These were trillion-dollar payoffs to Obama’s allies, unions and the Congress to placate the left, so he can get support for #4 above.

10. The election was over in mid-September when Lehman brothers failed, fear and panic swept in, we had an unpopular President, and the war was grinding on indefinitely without a clear outcome. The people are in pain, and the mantra of change caused people to act emotionally. Any Dem would have won this election; it was surprising it was as close as it was.

11. In 2012, if the unemployment rate is over 10%, Republicans will be swept back into power. If it’s under 8%, the Dems continue to roll. If it’s between 8-10%, it will be a dogfight. It will all be about the economy.

I hope this gets you really thinking about what’s happening in Washington and Congress. There is a left-wing revolution going on, according to Krauthammer, and he encourages us to keep the faith and join the loyal resistance. The work will be hard, but we’re right on most issues and can reclaim our country, before it’s far too late.”

When Newt is right, give him the kudos August 31, 2009

Posted by vsap in 2008 Presidential Election, Blogroll, Financial Crisis, Uncategorized, US Politics.
Tags: , , ,
add a comment

Newt Gingrich sent this along the other day. He doesn’t need my blog to help, but it is well-said. Here it is:

Facta, non verba.

For those of you who have forgotten your Latin, it means “deeds, not words.”

There’s been a lot of overheated rhetoric about health care reform, but this saying is one that all Americans should return to when considering plans for a government-dominated health system.

In other words, we should judge government, not by its words, but by its deeds.

With this simple principle in mind, what follows are three examples why government can’t – and shouldn’t – run our health care system (at least not any health care system you or I would want to be dependent on).

Reason No. 1: Government Can’t Be Trusted With a Credit Card

Every family knows about making a budget and living within its means. Government, to put it bluntly, does not.

What if your husband had come home last Friday night and announced that he had racked up almost 30 percent more debt on the family credit card – including the mortgage and car loans – than he had told you about just a month ago?

Would you trust him to go out and start spending money to remodel the kitchen? And do you think he could get a loan to do it?

But that’s exactly what the Obama Administration did with their weekend news dump. They announced late Friday that the amount of money they don’t have but are nonetheless planning on spending over the next ten years isn’t the astonishing $7 trillion they estimated in May but is instead an astounding $9 trillion.

Add this to the fact that, after the administration sold its health care reform proposal on the grounds that it will reduce costs to the Treasury, the independent Congressional Budget Office determined that the House plan will actually cost an astounding $1 trillion-$1.5 trillion in the next ten years, which will be added directly to the federal debt. The director of the CBO testified before Congress last month that “[i]n the legislation that has been reported we do not see the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount. And on the contrary, the legislation significantly expands the federal responsibility for health care costs.”

Which do you have more faith in, the government’s happy talk of “bending the cost curve” or its record of out-of-control spending?

Deeds, not words.

Reason No. 2: Government Can’t Even Give Away Money Effectively

As the inimitable Andy McCarthy of National Review put it, “Compared to the infinite complexity of healthcare and health-insurance, cash-for-clunkers is kindergarten stuff. You trade in your old car for a new one that gets (slightly) better mileage and the government gives you money – between $3,500 and $4,500. How hard is that?”

Too hard for government bureaucrats, it turns out.

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood has boasted that the cash-for-clunkers program provided “a lifeline to the automobile industry, jump starting a major sector of the economy and putting people back to work.”

But look at the deeds, not the words.

Last week, cash-for-clunkers ended in a bureaucratic morass of red tape, failed promises and unanticipated costs.

Air Traffic Controllers Manning the Cash-for-Clunkers Hotline

Only a government bureaucracy could mess up a program designed to give away free money.

The government wizards who set up cash-for-clunkers initially budgeted to sell 250,000 cars in three months.

The program sold that many in four days.

And because the central planners who think they can provide government “competition” to the private health insurance market failed to accurately estimate how many government workers it would take to administer cash-for-clunkers, they had to take employees from the FAA – air traffic controllers, no less – to help manage the demand.

And what about the car dealerships the program was supposed to help in the first place? Even though the rebates were supposed to be paid within 10 days, only 7 percent of federal promises under cash-for-clunkers have been paid so far, leaving dealers with millions of dollars in unfunded government promises.

More Than Bureaucratic Incompetence, Political Business as Usual

But there’s more to the cautionary tale of cash-for-clunkers than just bureaucratic incompetence.

This is a case study in what happens when politicians get involved in the marketplace.

Despite all the rhetoric of jump starting the auto industry, politicians’ priorities are to give free goodies to their constituents. So as far as they’re concerned, cash-for-clunkers has been a resounding success.

Forget the fact that they’re spending money they don’t have, or that car dealerships are left holding millions of dollars in empty government promises. They’re not concerned with the long-term, just the next election.

So tell us again why should we think bureaucrats and politicians will perform any better with our health care?

Reason No. 3: Government Would Rather Pay Crooks Than Manage Efficiently

There’s been a lot of worrying about the inevitability of government rationing health care under the Democratic reform bills in Congress.

Economists have known about this inevitability for a long time. Well, Americans can stop worrying. Government is rationing care already – and doing it in a particularly stupid way.

Studies have shown that early use of home health care after hospitalization – allowing patients to go home and be visited by a nurse to manage their care – saves Medicare billions of dollars.

So here is a case where an innovative government program actually saves the government money. Home health care is both more compassionate and more efficient. It reduces the likelihood a patient will be readmitted to a hospital by allowing her to heal in a more familiar setting.

Home Health Care Works, So Naturally Medicare Bureaucrats Cut Its Funding

So naturally bureaucrats at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services cut $34 billion from this compassionate, efficient program last week.

And if the House health care reform bill becomes law, an additional $56.8 billion will be cut from the program – an amount equal to almost the entire federal budget for home health care services in 2007.

What makes rationing care to the homebound all the more immoral is the fact that there is a much bigger pot of savings available to Washington if it only had the political will to look.

Instead of Seeking Savings from the Homebound, Why Not the Crooks?

As a new book by the Center for Health Transformation’s Jim Frogue details, criminals rip off the taxpayers to the tune of $80 billion to $120 billion each year in the current Medicare and Medicaid programs.

We’re not talking about inadvertent bill errors but outright fraud. Government health programs are currently paying men maternity benefits, giving taxpayer dollars to pizza parlors that are supposed to be HIV transfusion centers, and even paying dead patients federal health care benefits.

If ever there was a reason not to turn our entire health care system over to government it is this: Government can’t run the health care programs it already has. It would rather ration compassionate, effective programs than do the hard work of rooting out and punishing the crooks who are stealing our taxpayer dollars.

Facts are Stubborn Things

Americans have already heard a lot of rhetoric about health care reform, and we can expect to hear a lot more.

But as Ronald Reagan used to say, facts are stubborn things. And the facts of government’s track record in managing our money and delivering on its promises speak louder than any televised presidential speech or stage-managed town hall ever could.

So as the summer winds down and the debate rages on, let this be our mantra:

Facta, non verba.

Make a bumper sticker out of it.

Put it on a tee-shirt and wear it to a town hall.

And when someone asked you what it means, tell them that before we hand over more of our lives to government, we should consider how they’ve treated us so far.

Can I get an amen for Newt? Amen!

Change you are forced to believe in August 24, 2009

Posted by vsap in 2008 Presidential Election, Blogroll, Financial Crisis, Uncategorized, US Politics.
Tags: , , ,
add a comment
Here’s change you have no choice but to believe in…
Many Changes In The Workplace May Be Here To Stay:  The new office reality

Baltimore Business Journal – by Julekha Dash

“These are lean times at businesses throughout Greater Baltimore and the rest of the country. More than 40 percent of business leaders say they will employ fewer staff in three to five years compared with the number they employed prior to the recession, according to a Watson Wyatt Worldwide survey released this month.

All this change — and the threat of more to come if the economy does not rebound soon — has created an awkward vibe in office buildings from Howard to Harford and all spots in between. Employee morale has suffered. Managers are stressed to meet their bosses’ bottom-line demands. Some employees are afraid to voice their concerns or weigh in with feedback for fear of retribution. Meanwhile, just about everyone is working more hours these days, as layoffs and new responsibilities lead to an increased workload. Perhaps now more than ever employees are living for the weekends — unless they have to work Saturday and Sunday, too.”

Welcome to the world of change, delivered by Barack Hussein Obama. The story continues:

“About one-third of U.S. companies reacted to the recession by cutting staff, according to Watson Wyatt Worldwide. Another two-thirds have frozen hiring and salaries in the past year. One in 10 employers shortened their workweek to cut costs.”

And just when you thought it was getting better, because PresBO and his band of tax cheats and miscreants said so, there’s this:

“No group has been affected more by the recession than the employees of companies of all shapes, sizes and industries. In Maryland, more than 66,000 of them have been laid off since December 2007.

For the more than 2.5 million remaining in the state’s work force, the rules of engagement have changed. Many of them — regardless of tenure or job title — are looking over their shoulders, wondering if they are going to be the next to be handed a pink slip. Others are so focused on preserving their employment, they rarely say a word unless it’s at the urging of a manager.”

This is exactly what the liberals want: passive censorship for the sake of self-preservation. You stay quiet on the job front, they can get away with what they want on the political front because, frankly, you are too tired to fight them. At least until the health care issue bit them on their flabby butts.

On last bit of enlightenment about PresBOs America:

“Facing the threat of losing their jobs, employees are not speaking up as readily as they used to, said John McDermott, who was laid off last year from the Web design firm E.magination Network LLC.

“Now is not the time to put yourself out there,” he said. McDermott is now a self-employed technology consultant who sees the fear among many employees in his industry.

Employees do what they are told to do and “as they are told to do it,” he said. A director at a finance company, at a company McDermott declined to name, said he didn’t like the company’s strategic direction but refused to share it with his managers for fear of losing his job like others have in the industry.”

PresBO is trying to box you in, using your employers, using your health care plan, using any fear tactic available, to bring you to submission to his way.

This is the way of the socialist. This is the way of the fascist. This is your president.