"We've forgotten what belongs on Page One.", by Kirsten Powell, a Democrat strategist and longtime, liberal political operative.

This also finally registers with the Washington "This-Made-Our-Teeth-Ache-To-Write-About-This" Post, (note, not on the "front page" but on the "Faith" page, where they're sure no one but us who "cling to guns or religion" will dare to tread anyway).

I guess those who cling to their scalpels and surgical scissors frequent The WaPo front page.

And Gosnell in Philly isn't alone: Wilmington, Delaware Planned Parenthood has had 4 women severely injured by their abortionists in a recent 5-week span resulting in ambulances bringing them to the hospital. This woman was physically assaulted by someone coming out of this Planned Parenthood, simply because she stood on the sidewalk nearby filming with her cellphone camera as the ambulance came and transported the latest victim to the hospital.

And Planned Parenthood Florida "testified against a bill that would require abortionists to provide medical care to babies who survive attempted abortions."

Watch that video, it will send chills down your spine:

News? Hardly. Mark Steyn wrote about the Gosnell Philly clinic killing live babies "accidentally" born, in 2011.

Don't like reading conservative pundits? Read the Office of the District Attorney in Philadelphia, also in 2011, then, which is and was there then for all to read.

Still doubt that the mainstream media (MSM) is liberally-biased? If it wasn't, that would have been all over the 6 o'clock news in 2011 and ever since, until the trials were over. It wasn't, though, because it damned the legalized abortion industry. And we can't have that, oh no.

Eyeball it, folks. Stare it in the face. You can't NOT see it, the blatant hypocrisy of our press: killing over 100 live babies of "brown and black women" (the Philly prosecutor's term, not mine) is A.O.K. and not newsworthy in the least, but we can't stand for the killing of our babies in Sandy Hook, Newtown, Connecticut and cover it nonstop, and that, all rightly so.

Who's racist, now? It should ALL be covered.

Are we out of our ever-lovin' minds?

Ongoing video documentary of the Gosnell murder case:

WARNING: graphic images in this video. If you have had an abortion and have not begun some kind of healing recovery services (see sidebar at right for resources for this), please: DON'T watch this.

Especially touching are the parts where the National Black Pro-Life Coalition folks are talking. Also noteworthy is the fact that the most famous person interviewed in this video is NOT identified by name in a tagnote at the bottom of the screen: the niece of Dr. Martin Luther King, Alveda King, a very vocal, very visible pro-life spokeswoman. Listen to those parts of the video, if nothing else, at the 12:50 mark. Alveda is speaking at the 13:50 mark.

Gosnell forced at least one woman to go through with the abortion when she'd changed her mind. That's what legalized abortion has allowed.

Poor women, "brown and black women" (the words of the prosecutor, a black man himself), having to walk over blood-stained floors, sit on blood-stained beds and chairs, look at blood-stained walls. That's what legalized abortion has allowed.

Even if you're pro-choice, are those kinds of things the price you're willing to pay? It shouldn't be.

ALSO:

"Front Row at the Gosnell Horror Show", By Phelim McAleer on HotAir.com. About the mainstream media (MSM) ignoring this story because it shows what's happening--what's BEEN happening for years--with legal abortion and how the boundaries of the laws have been stretched and abused to the breaking point.

Only it's the women and "fully-formed" babies, who'd survive if born in a normal hospital, who are breaking.

"Why evangelicals should care about new pope: Catholics are our best allies in important cultural and political battles.

~ by Gary Bauer, president of American Values and chairman of the Campaign for Working Families.

Philly abortion "doctor" (my quotes) begins his trial for 7 counts of murder and being responsible for a woman's death:

"PHILADELPHIA — In opening statements in court on Monday, prosecutors charged that a doctor who operated a women’s health clinic here killed seven viable fetuses by plunging scissors into their necks and “snipping” their spinal cords and was also responsible for the death of a pregnant woman in his care.

That woman was a refugee from Nepal with three children who came here and four months later sought the abortion.

And eight of nine of this operator's staff have already plead guilty to "violating abortion laws, perjury and other charges." One of those staff members is Gosnell's wife. I wonder if she's the lone holdout.

How many years before China is offering the U.S. of A. a "deal" like this to bail US out?

"...the tiny Mediterranean island of Cyprus, with about a million inhabitants and 0.02% of Europe's GDP..., in exchange for an infusion of capital into the nation's banks' [as promised to be given to them by "the finance ministers of respectable European countries"], Cyprus is being asked to impose a 'special bank levy' that would take 6.75% out of all bank deposits up to 100,000 euros, and 9.9% above that."

Yes, you heard that right. Just—taking—almost 7% out of your and my bank accounts, whatever is in them, and out of ALL the 99% here, and almost 10% out of those in the 1%, to make a blunt comparison.

"This is described as a "wealth tax," except that it's not a tax. A tax is a regular rule that operates uniformly according to a pre-determine formula. A one-time, ad hoc seizure of money isn't a tax. It is confiscation. Or we can use a plainer word for it: theft.
...
"It's the ultimate bailout plan: they just take whatever they need.

"And there is more to it than that. This is confiscation, but it is a particular kind of confiscation with particular implications. It is the end of deposit insurance. Depositors, particularly small depositors, are supposed to have an ironclad guarantee that their money will always be there, no matter what—that they won't wake up one Monday morning to find that 6.75% of it is gone.

"That's why the Cyprus heist is really important. It is a warning that the whole system of deposit insurance is coming unglued."

Thanks, Obama, for shoving us sooo much closer to that edge.

God Bless Pope Francis....and Pope Benedict

"The appearance of a new pope is a noisy affair. The great bells of St. Peter’s follow the white smoke; the cheering crowd of tens of thousands overflow the great square; the ceremonial bands play their anthems and fanfares. In the midst of all that, the election of Pope Francis was marked by three great silences.

"The first silence, rather brief, immediately followed the “habemus papam” announcement itself. The people were temporarily stunned — who was this Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio, archbishop of Buenos Aires? His name had not been mentioned by the many who made predictions — including this writer. At 76, it was thought that his time had passed, even though he had been the principal alternative to Joseph Ratzinger in the 2005 conclave. The silence also acknowledged the historic weight of the moment: The first Latin American pope, the first Pope Francis; and the first Jesuit pope.

"The second silence was from the new pope himself, who emerged on the balcony of St. Peter’s, standing ramrod straight, not saying a word, allowing himself only a simple wave. There were no expansive papal gestures. His long silence before addressing the fevered cheering masses indicated that he too, perhaps, was surprised at an outcome he may have expected in 2005, but not now.

"The third silence was the most dramatic, and will soon be fixed in the imagination as the signature moment of his election. Before giving the people the traditional blessing, he asked them to pray that God might bless the new pope first. Then he bowed low as a great silent prayer enveloped the previously ecstatic square. He stood still and spoke gently, but that gesture was a grand announcement that here was a humble man who trusted in the power of prayer.

"Before that, he led the gathered pilgrims in praying the Our Father, Hail Mary and Glory Be prayers for his predecessor Benedict XVI. It was a moment of such Catholic simplicity that it left me and my colleagues momentarily out of sorts in the broadcast booth. I lead first-graders in those prayers as a country pastor in Wolfe Island, Ont. That a pope would do so on the balcony was both reassuring and surprising in its simplicity."

~ Father Raymond J. Souza, National Post

Disregard the mainstream media's swelled-head, presumed-superiority and uninformed "knowledge" about the real Catholic faith. Ignore the malarkey about how the Church can now "revive" its original commitment to helping the poor. Are they kidding me?? Talk about rewriting history and creating your own untrue reality.

Did you know that the Catholic Church is SECOND ONLY TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT in how much charity (i.e., physical, monetary and service-based HELP) it gives and has always given to those less fortunate than you or me?

Do you have any idea what deep trouble the federal government would be in if the Catholic Church closed all its hospitals, stopped all its charities, dried up the well and filled it with cement in this country alone? There is no amount of taking the "fair share" of any American, no amount of taxation of every single middle-class worker for every year from here until eternity that could make up for all that the Catholic Church and its faithful do for the poor and disadvantaged in this country, never mind worldwide.

The mainstream media is ignorant of that. As of most truths Catholic. And so, apparently, are the "more than half" of supposed U.S. Catholics. Tim Russert is rolling in his grave over the audacity of U.S. Catholics, including even his son Luke, in lecturing the new Pope about what the Catholic Church "should do."

"Get with the times!" "Get with the Program!" "Get out of the dark ages!" We've heard it all since even before JFK who, with his cheating on Jackie, certainly was no faithful Catholic.

Don't believe me that it's been going on that long?

1953: Yale professor Peter Viereck, in his book Shame and Glory of the Intellectuals, chapter 3, p. 45: "Catholic baiting is the anti-Semitism of the liberals."

The funny part is, those who upbraid the Catholic Church and will always insist on lecturing the Catholic Church or putting forth lies about this faith, be they CINOs (Catholics in Name Only) or not, have no clue how infinitesimal and insignificant they truly are, and all of us are, for that matter.

Allow me to speak to you for just one minute, if you are one of those saying such things, even in your own mind:

You? You---are telling GOD---how to build and run a Church? A church, that while it has made mistakes and I have personally contacted each and every bishop and cardinal in this country over some of the worst ones, it is still a church that's given so much to so many people, especially the poor, since its inception over two-thousand years ago? YOU---are telling GOD---why His inspired direction of His people, His chosen Cardinals, to select a Pope is somehow, even in the least way, flawed? You are surprised at the beliefs of this new Pope, and disappointed?? Really? Where have you been?

It would make me laugh out loud if it didn't make me cry.

In our galaxy alone, the Milky Way, there are 10 to 20 billion Sun-like G stars and 150 billion M-dwarf stars, the latter of which have M-dwarf planets, a huge number of which are just the right size and inside the stars' livable zones so as to be "potentially life-friendly planets."

Have you read about how, only just now, the Voyager I and II are just now reaching the fringes of our solar system and may soon pass through into interstellar space after riding the magnetic highway?

Did you also read about the discovery of "the largest known structure in the universe" which has 73 quasars (thus probably also 73 galaxies) and is "1.6 billion light-years in most directions, though it is 4 billion light-years across at its widest point."

Our galaxy, the Milky Way is 100,000 light-years wide and has about 200 billion stars, overall.

To give some perspective, Earth's solar system, inside the Milky Way, is about 0.0032 light years wide.

Our entire solar system, not the Milky Way galaxy and not just our planet Earth, is 32-ten-thousandths of one light-year wide.

That means our entire solar system, not just Earth, is A MERE EIGHT TEN-BILLIONTHS THE SIZE OF THIS LARGE QUASAR GROUP STRUCTURE.

And our best efforts haven't even gotten a spaceship outside our own solar system, never mind our own galaxy, yet?

And they're closer than ever to finding the so-called subatomic "God particle," the Higgs boson, which excites mankind (or at least physicists) because "Without the Higgs boson to explain why electrons and matter have mass, Carroll said, "there would be no atoms, there would be no chemistry, there would be no life, so that's kind of important."

The next question they'll have to answer though: how did the Higgs boson come into existence? Somehow it too had to start somewhere, somehow.

Ever stop to think there's a reason it's called "the God particle"? Ever stop to think that "a Creator" created the Higgs boson too? Why is that any more difficult to fathom than a Creator creating human beings in all our complexity?

You think that you could create a human finger, with its capillaries, hair follicles, nails, bones, ligaments, nerves? Has any human being yet, in all our supposed glory, replicated an exact human finger, never mind a body, other than through procreation, joining a sperm cell and an egg cell, which still takes a man and a woman and wasn't a process created by man in the first place?

And you think that all that complexity, massive and miniscule size and existence just happened--on its own, by mere chance? You honestly think that all that complexity, of that mind-boggling scale, and the nuances and possibilities in all those hundreds of thousands of quasar-galaxies with each of their 200 billion stars, you think this all just---POOF!---happened on its own, in one "big bang" or even several, without cause, without origin? Without a PLAN?

And you think that YOU are significant in telling the Catholic faith how to be the Catholic faith, or what kind of Pope to choose?

"How precious to me are your designs, O God;

how vast the sum of them!

Were I to count them, they would outnumber the sands..."

What kind of Pope will Jorge Mario Bergoglio be? I'm thrilled, as I was when Joseph Aloisius Ratzinger and Karol Józef Wojtyła before him were chosen.

I'm thrilled because of his major first (first from the Americas), but most of all because of his simpleness, his humility:

"...he sent two clear signals last night, unmistakable to papal Rome. He appeared in the simple papal cassock, declining to wear the accompanying red shoulder cape that his predecessors have always worn...

Additionally, he declined to use the term “pope emeritus” for Benedict, referring to him instead as “bishop emeritus,” thereby taking sides in a dispute within the Vatican about what Benedict should be called. Small things? Yes, but deliberate choices from an experienced pastor."

God chose a PASTOR, this time, like Pope John Paul II. He chose a simple, but experienced shepherd.

I pray for our new Pope, and for all those of us who truly believe we are the sheep, and especially those who are too proud, too modern, too "with the times," too self-important, to ever allow ourselves to be sheep.

More on that analogy, another time...

 

ABC News wrings its hands over "Why Have So Many States Banned Abortions?"

Maybe it's because of young men who are now growing up, realizing the truth, like the young fellow in the post just above this one.

Maybe it's because of young women like this one.

Laws changing are only the by-product.

As a friend of mine says, "Abortion will end because of one thing only, the grace of God and the healing of our nation. His personal touch on hearts, calling them to the truth and the dignity of all life, both before and after abortion."

I believe that is why this is happening. That personal touch on hearts. The healing. It's spreading. Like wildfire, actually, and has been for at least 14-15 years. Retreats and recovery services like this one, that one and that whole list of them, just for men, and so many more (in our sidebar are all the links).

All those, happening multiple times a year, every year, multiple places around the world, with 5 to 20 women (and some men) at each and every one of them, seeking healing, seeking redemption over their abortions or their involvement in one.

You can't help but see how the critical mass is being reached, over all this time. How so many hearts and souls are being helped.

I feel sorry for those (even those hardened, P.C., journalists at ABC) who wring their hands over diminished "choice", because they, like I used to do, cannot open themselves to the truth. The medical, scientific truth of what--who--is created at conception, according to medical school textbooks for I don't know how many decades of time in this nation.

It's ironic how they describe this phenomenon as "a poke of a stick in the eye of the Supreme Court, to dare them to take the case."

That was exactly the strategy of the NAACP when it went after racism as legalized by the Supreme Court.

The NAACP, led by Thurgood Marshall and Charles Houston, peppered the nine Supreme Court justices from 1935 through 1954, almost 20 years, with case after case after case to overturn the racial segregation "right" that was created (yes, CREATED, just like "right to choose" was created) by the high court's Plessy v. Ferguson case. They just kept filing more and more cases, until the critical mass of change had been reached incrementally and Brown v. Board of Education came along and finally achieved justice.

From the website of The Just Beginning Foundation (about the contribution of African Americans to the federal judiciary):

"The N.A.A.C.P.'s strategy for reaching its goals in education began by trying to undo the 1896 decision of Plessy v. Ferguson, 1896 (163 U.S. 537), in which the Supreme Court said that segregation was valid if it was 'separate but equal.' The N.A.A.C.P.'s. legal committee decided that the only way to accomplish meaningful change was to attack Plessy. Initially the goal was to demonstrate that the state which created separate school systems never, in fact, created "equal" systems. Eventually, this changed to a frontal assault on Plessy: separate was inherently unequal.

"In 1935, Charles Houston suggested that the N.A.A.C.P. adopt a strategy of litigating planned test cases to secure favorable legal precedents, thereby laying the foundation for later, fuller attacks on racial discrimination and segregation. The cases were to have a "sharply defined legal issue" that could be "supported by demonstrable evidence."

Sadly, the JBF took down that page, though it exists in the Wayback Machine web archive.

I've written several times over the past few years, asking folks to imagine the states, at some point, passing abortion bans that get struck down and then peppering the Supreme Court ultimately over the next few decades. Imagine a critical mass being reached where the justices finally acknowledge the facts of which Judge Edith Jones spoke when she wrote the decision to pass Roe v. Wade on up to the Supreme Court:

"The perverse result of the [Supreme] court's having determined through constitutional adjudication [i.e., Roe v. Wade] this fundamental social policy, which affects over a million women and unborn babies each year, is that the facts no longer matter. This is a peculiar outcome for a court so committed to 'life' that it struggles with the particular facts of dozens of death penalty cases each year...

That the court's constitutional decision making leaves our nation in a position of willful blindness to evolving knowledge should trouble any dispassionate observer not only about the abortion decisions, but about a number of other areas in which the court unhesitatingly steps into the realm of social policy under the guise of constitutional adjudication."

What were "the facts" and "evolving knowledge" Jones referred to?

This evidence included 1,000 affidavits from women who've had abortions and claim they have suffered long-term emotional damage. It also offered studies by scientists finding that women can be damaged physically and emotionally by having an abortion.

"In sum, if courts were to delve into the facts underlying Roe's balancing scheme with present-day knowledge, they might conclude that the woman's 'choice' is far more risky and less beneficial, and the child's sentience far more advanced, than the Roe court knew," wrote Jones...

"One may fervently hope that the Court will someday acknowledge such developments and re-evaluate Roe…accordingly."

My affidavit was one of those thousand.

But you won't get ANY of this from ABC News. Nor CNN, the New York Times, The Washington Post, MSNBC, CBS, NBC, or almost any other "news reporting agency."

Just because you don't get it from them, doesn't mean it isn't true or isn't happening. IT IS.

When Chief Justice Roberts was nominated to the Supreme Court, this was his assessment of overturning Roe:

"In his testimony, Judge Roberts described Brown v. Board of Education as a 'restrained' decision. In ruling that segregated public schools were unconstitutional, Brown effectively overruled the nearly six-decades-old error of Plessy v. Ferguson, and its removal of government-sponsored segregation from the political processes predictably resulted in tremendous disruption of established practices. Overturning Roe would lead to far less disruption, as it would return the issue of abortion policy to the people to determine through their elected representatives."

In other words, exactly what is happening now, as described in such a pitifully-liberally-biased manner by ABC News.

Watch, liberal Democrats, and learn some real facts. Before we become like those 100 MILLION murdered, disarmed citizens in China, Russia, Cambodia, Nazi Germany, and more.

You Can Choose That But You Can't Choose This

"Many liberals who, with solemn self-congratulation, call themselves “pro-choice” become testy when the right to choose is not confined to choosing to kill unborn babies.

"They say the right to choose is not progressive when it enables parents to choose their children’s schools or permits workers to choose not to fund unions’ political advocacy. ...
"If you seek a monument to Michigan’s unions, look, if you can without wincing, at Detroit, where the amount of vacant land is approaching the size of Paris. And where the United Auto Workers, which once had more than 1 million members and now has about 380,000, won contracts that crippled the local industry — and prompted the growth of the non-unionized auto industry that is thriving elsewhere. Detroit’s rapacious and oblivious government-employees unions are parasitic off a near-corpse of a city that has lost 25 percent of its population just since 2000. The Wall Street Journal reports that because some government workers with defined-benefit pensions can retire in their 40s, 'many retirees living into their 80s are drawing benefits for nearly twice as long as they work.' ...
"Democrats who soon will celebrate two of their party’s saints at Jefferson-Jackson Day dinners should jettison either their opposition to right-to-work laws or their reverence for Jefferson, who said: 'To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.'"

"[T]he unions have also lost public support through their own actions.

"Inflexible private-sector unions have helped make companies less competitive (and therefore less able to hire workers), while public-sector unions have taken state and local governments for a ride, leaving taxpayers with trillions of dollars in pension and retiree health care liabilities.

"On the private-sector side, one need look no further than the auto industry. Trying to preserve pay and benefit structures not sustainable since the 1960s, labor has wreaked havoc on Detroit, contributing to the need for the bailouts of General Motors and Chrysler.

"Something similar happened in the recent demise of Twinkies' maker Hostess. Its bakers union refused to recognize that the company was hemorrhaging money in an industry plagued by an excess in antiquated plants. The result is that 15,000 jobs have disappeared when some could have been saved.

"Public-sector unions, meanwhile, have all but declared war on the general public. In many cases, they have induced lawmakers to put their states and localities on a path to insolvency by approving massive, unfunded pension and retiree health care obligations."

THANKS, Obamacare!

My healthcare premiums for next year, for the exact same coverage and benefits, just went up $1,000.

Just spoke to someone I know, one-half of an elderly couple, and his premiums went up $3,000 for 2013. Same care, same coverage.

All due to Obamacare fears on the part of insurance companies. They're already passing on their costs to us, and they haven't even incurred those costs yet.

Just like I posted a link on Nov.14, indicating that those much more learned than I predicted this would happen. Good choice, that Obamacare. Cost of medical health benefits goes way up before it's even in effect. This was predicted even before the bill passed too, but did anybody listen? 50-point-miniscule percent of us didn't.

"THIS BILL DOES NOT CONTROL COSTS."

And as far as how Obamacare is supposed to get paid for, at all?

"The Senate Budget Committee Chairman said that this is a Ponzi scheme that would make Bernie Madoff proud."

ObamaCare strips Medicare of a HALF-TRILLION dollars. That's $500,000,000,000.00.

20% of Medicare doctors will have to go out of business...

In the first 10 years, ObamaCare gives us a $460 Billion deficit, and in its second 10 years, it gives us--no, our kids and grandkids--a $1.4 TRILLION deficit.

Well, 50-point-miniscule percent of the American people didn't listen, not to any of those truths. Listening to all that would have meant you were racist, according to most liberals and their talking heads like Chris Matthews.

And while we're on the subject, did you know that almost $5 Million of your money and my money -- taxpayer dollars -- were siphoned off by the Obama administration to pay for TV and online ads so they could "convince" us that this was a good thing for all of us?

Oh, yeah. Read all about it. Did we get to say no to that? Were we even asked if we approved? No. Sure, it's another drop in the bucket, just like taxing the "wealthy" their so-called "fair share", but still, I didn't give Obama the green-light to use my paid taxes for his awful legislation.

State of Connecticut Ran A Surplus in 2011 Due to Massive Tax Increases...Now Needs to Borrow Money To Pay Its Own Bills

Gov. Dannel Malloy is just emulating his hero, Obama, who exacerbates the "tax so you spend more than you can ever possibly earn" motto.

Notice the damn numbers, people. Notice how in May 2011, when Malloy was trying to get his budget passed, he made it seem like it would generate an "anticipated $1 billion surplus," then not one month later, June 2011, that surplus was projected to be only $679.8 million, then by almost December 2011, it had somehow shrunk to just "more than $100 million", and now a year later, we're in the red again and we need to borrow $550 million in "emergency financing" just to pay the Connecticut government's bills.

Do you see the pattern? GOVERNMENT, ONCE IT GETS ITS HANDS ON ALL THAT EXTRA MONEY, JUST SPEND-SPEND-SPENDS IT TILL EVEN AFTER IT'S GONE AND CAN'T STOP SPENDING. THE APPETITE IS WHETTED AND IT WON'T EVER GO BACK TO **NOT** DEVOURING 8 ENTIRE CHICKENS, A GALLON OF GRAVY ON TOP OF A DOZEN MASHED POTATOS AND TWO WHOLE APPLE PIES. IN ONE SITTING.

Funny how that happens when a tax-and-spend Democrat promises that we have to have more taxes in order to "balance the budget."

That's like you and me going to our EMPLOYERS and saying, "I have to have a huge raise--take it from the other employees if you must-- so I can balance my checkbook and keep up with my increasing spending."

I'm not against the poor. So if you're a liberal, just don't go there. Or rather, STOP going there with any. conservative. you. ever. speak. about. or. to. AGAIN.

Get your liberal mind around the fact that we who are conservative, Conservative, Republican, Tea Party, and/or libertarian, are NOT among those "who try to cut health insurance for children." Or OTHERWISE want to ignore the poor or disadvantaged.

I've been on borderline poverty, below and just above that line, for years. I've thrashed through illness to make a living for myself and my family. I've taken charity from churches, and for a short time, even from the state, while I was ill. I've been there, and I'm one foot away from being there again, just like every single one of us in this nation. All it takes is loss of your health and you see how fast the downhill slide becomes.

But even Jesus Christ said "The poor you will always have with you." Put in other words, even if you taxed all the "wealthy" that Obama and the liberals say have to "pay their fair share," even if you taxed what Obama thinks is their "fair share," the TOTAL you'll get is somewhere under $100 BILLION. That isn't even a drop in the bucket of what Obama has added to the government spending deficit AND the overal U.S. debt, in his first four years:

When President Obama took office, the total national debt was nearly $10.6 trillion. Today, it’s over $16 trillion. That’s more than a 50 percent increase in the national debt in less than four years.
...
"[T]he U.S. budget deficit for 2012, measuring the federal government’s spending in excess of revenue, already exceeds $1 trillion—and the fiscal year is not even over yet. This also marks the fourth straight year of $1 trillion-plus deficits."

Obama increased the U.S. debt over $5.4 TRILLION in less than four years.

He, personally, as POTUS, allowed the U.S. to SPEND over $4 TRILLION more than it took in, in four years.

$5,400,000,000,000 (Obama's increase of $5.4 Trillion to the National Debt)
-      82,000,000,000 ($82 Billion obtained from taxing the "wealthy")
$5,318,000,000,000 (Obama's Increase of $5.318 Trillion)

(TOTAL National Debt would be $15,918,000,000,000, still)

And in September, Obama went on Letterman to say "we don’t have to worry about [the debt] short term" and that he didn't "remember what that [debt] number was precisely" when he took office in 2009.

So if Obama gets to tax the "wealthy" as he wants to, as a form of "revenge" and payback to soothe the masses, expect this. And the $82 Billion it would generate each year? Would only run the U.S. government for a grand total of eight days. OR, it would only pay down 4 months of interest on the [original] $10.6 Trillion debt ($258 billion in 2012). Not principal, not what was actually borrowed, but just the interest payment for 4 months. How many of us went "underwater" and got behind on our mortgages that way?

OR, it would pay off only 7.5% of the $1.1 Trillion deficit, and allow us NOT to borrow money for only one month each year, according to the link in the prior paragraph. Big Whoop.

So, it solves nothing except to make those who feel gypped, feel like they're getting revenge on those more fortunate by supposedly forcing them to fix the country's problems, even though it leaves the less-fortunate, gypped-feelers in exactly the same bad mess they're in, only possibly worse because it drives out of existence the only ones CAPABLE of creating the jobs in the first place.

Yes, I know firsthand that "the corporations" can be led by greedy, selfish people. I know that some corporations will take or make shortcuts on everything wherever they can.

I've worked for 3 Fortune 500 companies in my lifetime. I've felt "gypped" and like a number, much of that time.

They still are the ones who had the jobs to offer. So do you cut off your nose to spite your face? Do you bite the hand that helps you feed you and your kids?

Obama says, YES.

But all we are saying is, NO. There comes a point where you can't bankroll a nanny state anymore by taking from the rich to give to the poor (socialism at its most basic definition, folks). There comes a point when you can't continue to encourage bloated government as the panacea to everyone's ills, especially when you refuse to surgically cut off the waste that goes on and that you and I pay for: one small example of the waste is this, actual photos of excess mail order drugs sent to seniors mostly, who either told the mail orders they'd stopped the meds, didn't order that much or had notified them the patient had died, yet they sent massive amounts, overkill, of medications.

Cut THAT stuff out, and other boondoggles like them, first.

There comes a point when the back of the camel breaks, and there isn't any more money to squeeze out of those who have any, and then there is revolt, because those accustomed to getting their iPhones and rent and food and games from the government, and can't get the goodies anymore, rise up and "burn this motherf**cker down."

Obama and liberals can say we hate the poor all they want and that they're the only ones caring about the poor and disadvantaged; no matter how many times they say it, it won't ever make it true.

It's ironic that conservatives give more of their incomes to those less fortunate than liberals do. Don't take my word for it: read The New York Times summary or The Washington Post's George Will's, of the findings in 2008,

"...if measuring by the percentage of income given, conservatives are more generous than liberals even to secular causes."

"Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household."

Politico.com posted about similar results in 2012:

"The eight states with residents who gave the highest share of their income to charity supported Sen. John McCain in 2008, while the seven states with the least generous residents went for President Barack Obama, the Chronicle of Philanthropy found in its new survey of tax data from the IRS for 2008.

...'to account for sharp differences in the cost of living across America' the study 'compared generosity rates after residents paid taxes, housing, food, and other necessities.'"

I suppose they didn't have complete access to data later than 2008? So we'll have to wait a few years to get the 2011 data, perhaps. I doubt much will change in this regard in 3 years.

By then, we will be another $5 TRILLION in debt, thanks to Obama. And your children and grandchildren and mine, will have to pay for YOUR choice, if we haven't declared ourselves bankrupt first, as Greece and others are near to doing now.

How To Defeat ObamaCare NOW - It IS Possible Still

Republicans will hold 30 governorships starting in January, and at last week's meeting of the Republican Governors Association they made it clear that they remain highly critical of the health law. Some Republican governors—including incoming RGA Chairman Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, Ohio's John Kasich, Wisconsin's Scott Walker and Maine's Paul LePage—have already said they won't do the federal government's bidding. Several Democratic governors, including Missouri's Jay Nixon and West Virginia's Earl Ray Tomblin, have also expressed serious concerns.
...
States still have two key choices to make that together will put them in the driver's seat: whether to create state health-insurance exchanges, and whether to expand Medicaid. They should say "no" to both.

At its core, ObamaCare is a massive entitlement expansion. Between vastly increased Medicaid eligibility and new premium subsidies, it is expected to bring 30 million more people onto the federal government's entitlement rolls. The law anticipates that the states will take on the burden of implementing the expansions, but states can opt out of both.
...
The exchanges would create unsustainable pressures on each state's insurance market, treating similarly situated people differently by providing far greater subsidies for those in the exchanges than those in employer plans—yielding perverse incentives that distort consumer and employer decisions and increase costs.

States would endure all this simply to become functionaries of the federal government. The idea that creating state exchanges would give states control over their insurance markets is a fantasy. The states would be enforcing a federal law and federal regulations, with very little room for independent judgment.

[MY NOTE ON THAT: The Democrats sure hate the No Child Left Behind Act for the Exact. Same. Reason. So why is it no good for that but FANTASTIC for this??

Governors know this.
...
By declining to build exchanges, the states would pass the burden and costs of the exchanges to the administration that sought this law. And it is far from clear that the administration could operate the exchanges on its own.

Congress didn't allocate money for administering federal exchanges, and the law as written seems to prohibit federally run exchanges from providing subsidies to individuals...
...
Thus states that refuse to create their own exchanges would effectively be repealing a large part of the law—sparing their citizens from the job-killing employer mandate and from assaults on their religious liberty. In some cases people would even be spared from the individual mandate to buy coverage, since in the absence of exchange subsidies more families would qualify for exemptions from the mandate.

The Medicaid expansion, meanwhile, would throw millions of additional Americans into a system that is already bankrupting state governments and increasing costs in the private-insurance market. Medicaid's payments for services are so low that many existing beneficiaries have trouble finding physicians and other health-care providers who will accept them as patients. Enrolling more people without reform will push the system to the point of collapse.
...
Instead of following the Obama administration's plan, states should seek real reform. For example, they should demand that Washington transform the federal portion of Medicaid for non-disabled and non-elderly beneficiaries into a uniform block grant, with state discretion over eligibility and benefits. The goal should be to turn Medicaid into a premium-assistance program rather than government-run insurance. Medicaid could then be used to help people enroll in mainstream insurance plans. This is the way to help the low-income uninsured get the same kind of coverage as other Americans.

"We're not going to get out of this thing without pain."

CNN spins it down, sugarcoating it for its readers into just a "mild" recession, while Greenspan clearly uses the word "moderate." Wouldn't you like to get your news unspun, you know, like, as in, the truth?

Allowing taxes to rise would be a small price to pay to get U.S. lawmakers to accept spending cuts on entitlement programs, even if it leads to a “moderate recession,” former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said...Greenspan said it would be a mistake to think that the U.S. is going to fix its “unstoppable” spending “without pain.”...“A large increase in taxes required to fund what is currently in the books is going to cause a recession."

Expansion in the U.S. faces headwinds from a slowing global economy and the risk Congress won’t reach a deal to avoid the so-called fiscal cliff, more than $600 billion of tax increases and federal spending cuts scheduled to kick in automatically in January. The drop in spending and rise in taxes could push the country back into recession, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

Yes, that would be our very own Congress, our own government's Budget wonks, agreeing with Greenspan.

That same CBO, by the way, reports that, since Obama's re-election,

The post-election rout in U.S. stocks has driven the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index down so far that it would have to advance 26 percent to reach the valuation of bull markets since John F. Kennedy was in the White House.

U.S. stocks sank for the week, sending the Dow Jones Industrial Average to its longest losing streak since August 2011...Investors have seen $806 billion erased from the value of American equities since President Barack Obama was re-elected Nov. 6 in the biggest decline since May.

Don't care about rich people losing all that money in their stock market? Are you happy to see rich people lose all that much money? Consider this, then: the wealthy will have that much less money to even owe higher taxes on that could then have been handed over to those Obama promised it would be redistributed to for doing nothing to earn it.

And I am F A A A R R R from a wealthy person, folks.

The Union Who Screwed the Hostess Twinkie Workers Out of Jobs

The final straw came when the Bakers, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers International Union, which represents 30 percent of the Hostess work force, ignored a company order to end its strike and return to work by 5 p.m. Thursday.

"I don't know if they thought that was a bluff," said Gregory Rayburn, Hostess' chief executive officer. A change of mind now, he said is "too late."
...
"They thought they were playing a game with them and they guessed wrong," Kevin O'Toole, secretary-treasurer of Teamsters Local 145 in Stratford told the Associated Press. He blamed the bakers' union for the shutdown.

"We were gainfully employed," O'Toole said Friday. "We had benefits. Now we have nothing."

O'Toole's local represents Hostess Brands' truck drivers...

A union representing only 30% of Hostess' workers put the final straw on, breaking the camel's back, and now they're all out of work, out of pensions, out of everything, just before Thanksgiving and Christmas. And the other unions blame their fellow union for this act of blind-to-reality petulance.

Unions don't all act this stupidly, but sadly, more and more of them have been demanding raises in a ravaged economy, now or in times past, when it clearly is unsustainable and out of sync with reality. So holding out for more money or other lavish perks that just don't exist for private workers anymore is clearly ridiculous when the only alternatives are to keep your job and be glad for it, or to close the doors because it costs too much to run the business anymore.

Yet Obama and many Democrats, by their words and actions, have encouraged his union friends to "hold out" for more from rich, greedy corporate America. Because after all, ALL corporate America is greedy and sinful and screwing the average Joe and Josephine, as we've been taught by Obama. Obama didn't start the fire, but he sure as hell isn't trying to fight it, he's only fanning it, to grow it, to make it engulf this country.

Some stones, Mr. Obama, you just can't squeeze blood from. Hostess Brands is but the first "big-name" one. There will be others, thanks to your fanning the flames of class-warfare.

Like, for instance, all the companies who are finding it's cheaper to pay the Obamacare penalty rather than continue offering health insurance to their employees, just so they can keep the doors open and still have a company. Just watch, there will be thousands, if not tens or hundreds of thousands of companies seeing this as the only fiscal way to stay in business.

And that's exactly what Obama was counting on, apparently, in order to pay for some it all. So a few million more will get health insurance who couldn't get it before, while just as many but probably MORE will forfeit their health insurance and now go without it.

Brilliant. Just flipping brilliant.

"Obama Donor's Corporation Lays Off Employees Due to ObamaCare"

"Stryker Corporation has announced that it will close its facility in Orchard Park, New York, eliminating 96 jobs next month. It will also counter the medical device tax in Obamacare by eliminating 5% of their global workforce, an estimated 1,170 positions.
...
"Stryker's corporation is part of an industry that has been a big loser at the hands of Obamacare. Having refused to get on board with the White House and the Senate Finance Committee when the law was being crafted in 2009, the medical device industry was punished with an excise tax of 2.3% of their revenues, regardless of whether they make a profit."

"The Joint Committee on Taxation has done the math. Raising the top two rates [on 'the rich,' defined by him as families with incomes over $250,000] as proposed by Obama would increase revenue by $22.35 billion in FY 2013, assuming that no economic activity is deterred by the higher rates. [SEE ABOVE ITEM...NOT LIKELY] Which means that higher taxes on the rich, Obama’s only proposal to deal with the nation’s impending fiscal calamity, would cover around 2% of the current federal budget deficit, and would make no contribution at all toward dealing with our $16 trillion debt. So, Barry, what’s your plan for the other 98%? And, hey, how about that debt?

(Hat tip to Jim Vicevitch at RadioViceOnline.com who did the math on Nov. 7 too)

Cue The Eye-Twitch

"[Obamacare makes it] 'likely insurance companies will raise premiums on everybody, given the mandate, to deal with the number of pre-existing conditions that come into the fold.'

WE ONLY HEAR ABOUT THIS FROM REGULAR NEWS WEBSITES *** N O W ***, AFTER THE ELECTION?? Of course, we do. That way, you see, Obama gets re-elected because people are still ignorant of the truth.

"And once the law actually goes into effect it's the pre-existing conditions provision that has the potential to do a lot of damage to the consumer, according to Funtleyder. He says it is 'likely insurance companies will raise premiums on everybody, given the mandate, to deal with the number of pre-existing conditions that come into the fold.' And that is one of the many key criticisms of the plan: little to no direct cost-control.

"As it stands, the bill has only one such feature; the Independent Payment Advisory Board, otherwise called by its acronym 'IPAB' or more commonly the death panel. This provision puts 15 [unelected, hand-picked] bureaucrats in charge of deciding where to cut costs and funding for certain health care services. Funtleyder says it's widely disliked on both sides of the political aisle, making it a reasonable assumption that the death panel could be repealed. If that happens, he argues there will be no mechanism at all to control costs."

So we're damned if we do, damned if we don't.

"In short, Americans are about to get a large tax rate hike on small businesses, which will inhibit their ability to hire, expand and survive. Add to that the growing threat to businesses from Obamacare, which is rapidly accelerating a shift to part-time workforces from full-time ones, and the full extent of the looming disaster for lower-income workers becomes clearer. And for all this pain, there will be no corresponding reduction to the federal deficit.

"Obama has talked about taking 'a balanced approach' to the deficit, and he criticizes Republicans for their unwillingness to accept tax increases in exchange for spending cuts. But GOP skepticism toward such deals is well-grounded. Whenever these deals are struck, the spending cuts are inevitably undone and the tax increases go into effect. The Republican skeptics are now being vindicated in real time."

"He won no mandate for a new major agenda—indeed, he hardly bothered to ask for one, except for raising taxes on the wealthy. The aim of his campaign was to retain the keys to the presidential office, at virtually any cost.

He succeeded by hanging on. Obama made history in 2012 almost as much as he did in 2008. For the first time, an incumbent won re-election to a second term while receiving a smaller share of the vote than in his first term... It is a stretch to see a robust majority coalition in 50.4% of the population, especially in the case of electing an incumbent president who had all the advantages of his office, who faced no competition for the nomination, and who had four years to build a formidable organization."

How We Americans Look To Those Not American:

"Obama’s 'sharing the wealth' approach won’t accomplish anything.
...
"Public health and education standards have collapsed (though not those in the private sector); the whole country is being terrorized by a fascistic prosecution service; and the number of food-stamp recipients and the number of people with criminal records are coursing neck and neck toward 50 million apiece, a shocking figure in each case. The wealthiest country in history is bankrupt, with 50 million citizens in poverty and the entire middle class on an economic knife-edge.
...
"[Obama] has converted the $10-trillion of national debt accumulated in 232 years of American history (from 1776 to 2008) into $16-trillion now, and has financed most of it by selling bonds to the Treasury’s 100% subsidiary, the Federal Reserve, in exchange for bogus cyber-notes. This violates George Washington’s injunction to defend an indissoluble Union militarily and with a strong currency. It isn’t debt at all; it is just a money supply increase of incendiary inflationary consequences, with a delay-fuse provided by the proportions of the economic slow-down the official extravagance has failed to alleviate, in which the 25% annual gasoline price increase and double-digit food and milk price increases are disguised by collapsed housing prices and minimal interest rates, and the recessionary pricing of manufacturers. It is a giant shell game, but there is nothing under any of the shells.

"The United States runs up additional debt of $188-million per hour, this President has added $17,000 of new debt for every man, woman and child in the country, and given no hint of how he proposes to prevent the U.S. currency from becoming toilet paper. And there are five million fewer Americans working than four years ago. The greatest and wealthiest nation in history is sliding into a more profound bankruptcy than any serious country has had since Weimar Germany, and almost the whole country seems to be in a delusional fantasyland. The whole American project is under threat as it has not been since 1933, if not 1861. It had the swiftest ascent, and is now nosing into the steepest dive of any great power in history.
...
"Nothing short of higher taxes on discretionary transactions to shrink the deficit, lower income taxes to promote growth and recovery, a serious spending review including entitlement reform, a bi-partisan assault on medical costs (more than twice what they are in other advanced countries such as Canada, while providing inferior care for a third of Americans, a state of affairs that will not be much altered by Obamacare); and a radical reconstruction of the education and justice systems, will restart the long-inexorable rise of America. There is no sign of any of this being considered or that it is even politically possible.

"For the first time, a combination of non-white minorities and whites who are invested personally, either emotionally or more often for tangible reasons, in the redistributive side of the political civil war between advocates of growth and of direct transfers of resources from those who have earned them (or inherited from those who did) to those who haven’t (regardless of mitigating circumstances), has eked out a clear victory. If American politics continues along these lines, the social strains, piled onto the funeral pyre of the national accounts, will put the fate of what has long been the world’s greatest nation in acute doubt."

~ Conrad Black, The National Post, Canada

This is about all I can do, after this election, in the face of what is to come.

The Revenge Presidency

Petraeus rejected Obama's administration's throwing HIM under the Benghazi bus, now, Obama can't even wait a week or a month to have his administration leak to his adoring news media (in this case, NBC) about Petraeus' affair, and now he's resigned. Funny, though, Reuters, McClatchy and the liberal Politico get information discrediting NBC's "version."

See, the FBI and the White House had all this information BEFORE the election. And it only comes out four days AFTER Obama's won? How stupid do you think 48% of us are, really?

UPDATE: The Washington Post confirms "He resigned last week after being told to do so by Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper Jr. on the day President Obama was reelected." AFTER the White House knew about it all since September.

And The Boston Herald agrees that payback's a bitch. We who know Obama could have seen this coming, had we known about it like all of Obama and his administration did.

Obama goes after those he hates and disdains, he practices what he preaches when he exhorts his rabid followers to "punish our enemies," to "kill" them, we've learned all too well. And he gets 50% of the voting public to do so too. Too bad, Mr. President, that it still won't stop Petraeus from testifying in the Senate hearings against you about the truth of your bungling Benghazi before, during and after 9/11/12.

MEDIA OVERALL POSITIVE TO OBAMA, NEGATIVE TO ROMNEY, Pew Research Study Shows

MSNBC was worse towards Romney than Fox was toward Obama:

"MSNBC stands out the most. On that channel, 71% of the segments studied about Romney were negative in nature, compared with just 3% that were positive-a ratio of roughly 23-to-1. On Fox, 46% of the segments about Obama were negative, compared with 6% that were positive-a ratio of about 8-to-1 negative."

MSNBC's stories on Romney were 71% negative, and Fox's stories on Obama were 46% negative. Guess "Fair and Balanced" isn't a lie, after all. Guess Obama will have to "punish" MSNBC for not being MORE negative to his "enemies."

Overall, media stories were 19% positive toward Obama and only 15% positive toward Romney (and the only reason for that relative closeness was that the weeks studied included the post-first-debate Romney positive weeks), and 30% negative toward Obama and 38% negative toward Romney. From convention time up till just before the first debate, Romney had 4% of stories that were positive to Obama's 20% positive, and 52% negatives to Obama's 24% negative coverage. Obama's "Kill Romney" ads worked, after all.

And people look at me like I'm from another planet when I've told them this research isn't new and it isn't news, it's a fact. If the media covered Benghazi as if Obama was a Republican President, it'd have been the reverse.

Two uncanny predictions on what is happening to the U.S. or will soon, as I just alluded to on Wednesday

"But when equality of conditions grows up among a people who have never known or have long ceased to know what freedom is (and such is the case on the continent of Europe)..all powers seem spontaneously to rush to the center. These powers accumulate there with astonishing rapidity, and the state instantly attains the utmost limits of its strength, while private persons allow themselves to sink as suddenly to the lowest degree of weakness.
...
"Hence the concentration of power and the subjection of individuals will increase among democratic nations, not only in the same proportion as their equality, but in the same proportion as their ignorance. It is true that in ages of imperfect civilization the government is frequently as wanting in the knowledge required to impose a despotism upon the people as the people are wanting in the knowledge required to shake it off; but the effect is not the same on both sides. However rude a democratic people may be, the central power that rules them is never completely devoid of cultivation, because it readily draws to its own uses what little cultivation is to be found in the country, and, if necessary, may seek assistance elsewhere. Hence among a nation which is ignorant as well as democratic an amazing difference cannot fail speedily to arise between the intellectual capacity of the ruler and that of each of his subjects. This completes the easy concentration of all power in his hands: the administrative function of the state is perpetually extended because the state alone is competent to administer the affairs of the country.
...
"The foremost or indeed the sole condition required in order to succeed in centralizing the supreme power in a democratic community is to love equality, or to get men to believe you love it. Thus the science of despotism, which was once so complex, is simplified, and reduced, as it were, to a single principle.
...
"I seek to trace the novel features under which despotism may appear in the world. The first thing that strikes the observation is an innumerable multitude of men, all equal and alike, incessantly endeavoring to procure the petty and paltry pleasures with which they glut their lives. Each of them, living apart, is as a stranger to the fate of all the rest; his children and his private friends constitute to him the whole of mankind. As for the rest of his fellow citizens, he is close to them, but he does not see them; he touches them, but he does not feel them; he exists only in himself and for himself alone; and if his kindred still remain to him, he may be said at any rate to have lost his country.

"Above this race of men stands an immense and tutelary power, which takes upon itself alone to secure their gratifications and to watch over their fate. That power is absolute, minute, regular, provident, and mild. It would be like the authority of a parent if, like that authority, its object was to prepare men for manhood; but it seeks, on the contrary, to keep them in perpetual childhood: it is well content that the people should rejoice, provided they think of nothing but rejoicing. For their happiness such a government willingly labors, but it chooses to be the sole agent and the only arbiter of that happiness; it provides for their security, foresees and supplies their necessities, facilitates their pleasures, manages their principal concerns, directs their industry, regulates the descent of property, and subdivides their inheritances: what remains, but to spare them all the care of thinking and all the trouble of living?

"Thus it every day renders the exercise of the free agency of man less useful and less frequent; it circumscribes the will within a narrower range and gradually robs a man of all the uses of himself. The principle of equality has prepared men for these things; it has predisposed men to endure them and often to look on them as benefits.

"After having thus successively taken each member of the community in its powerful grasp and fashioned him at will, the supreme power then extends its arm over the whole community. It covers the surface of society with a network of small complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided; men are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting. Such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.

~ Alexis De Tocqueville, in Democracy In America, 1835 and 1840

[Hat Tip to this 2008 article (a coincidence that Obama was elected then? Probably not.)

And even more creepily foretelling, this letter, written in 1857, about America, by a British historian:

"I have long been convinced that institutions purely democratic must, sooner or later, destroy liberty or civilization, or both. In Europe, where the population is dense, the effect of such institutions would be almost instantaneous. What happened lately in France is an example. In 1848 a pure democracy was established there. During a short time there was reason to expect a general spoliation, a national bankruptcy, a new partition of the soil, a maximum of prices, a ruinous load of taxation laid on the rich for the purpose of supporting the poor in idleness. Such a system would, in twenty years, have made France as poor and barbarous as the France of the Carlovingians. Happily the danger was averted, and now there is a despotism, a silent tribune, an enslaved press. Liberty is gone: but civilisation has been saved.

"I have not the smallest doubt that, if we had a purely democratic government here, the effect would be the same. Either the poor would plunder the rich, and civilisation would perish; or order and property would be saved by a strong military government, and liberty would perish. You may think that your country enjoys an exemption from these evils. I will frankly own to you that I am of a very different opinion. Your fate I believe to be certain, though it is deferred by a physical cause. As long as you have a boundless extent of fertile and unoccupied land, your labouring population will be far more at ease than the labouring population of the old world; and, while that is the case, the Jeffersonian polity may continue to exist without causing any fatal calamity. But the time will come when New England will be as thickly peopled as old England. Wages will be as low, and will fluctuate as much with you as with us. You will have your Manchesters and Birminghams; and, in those Manchesters and Birminghams, hundreds of thousands of artisans will assuredly be sometimes out of work. Then your institutions will be fairly brought to the test. Distress every where makes the labourer mutinous and discontented, and inclines him to listen with eagerness to agitators who tell him that it is a monstrous iniquity that one man should have a million while another cannot get a full meal. In bad years there is plenty of grumbling here, and sometimes a little rioting. But it matters little. For here the sufferers are not the rulers. The supreme power is in the hands of a class, numerous indeed, but select, of an educated class, of a class which is, and knows itself to be, deeply interested in the security of property and the maintenance of order. Accordingly, the malecontents are firmly, yet gently, restrained. The bad time is got over without robbing the wealthy to relieve the indigent. The springs of national prosperity soon begin to flow again: work is plentiful: wages rise; and all is tranquillity and cheerfulness. I have seen England pass three or four times through such critical seasons as I have described. Through such seasons the United States will have to pass, in the course of the next century, if not of this. How will you pass through them. I heartily wish you a good deliverance. But my reason and my wishes are at war; and I cannot help foreboding the worst. It is quite plain that your government will never be able to restrain a distressed and discontented majority. For with you the majority is the government, and has the rich, who are always a minority, absolutely at its mercy. The day will come when, in the State of New York, a multitude of people, none of whom has had more than half a breakfast or expects to have more than half a dinner, will chuse a legislature. Is it possible to doubt what sort of legislature will be chosen? On one side is a statesman preaching patience, respect for vested rights, strict observances of public faith. On the other is a demagogue ranting about the tyranny of capitalists and usurers, and asking why anybody should be permitted to drink Champagne and to ride in a carriage, while thousands of honest folks are in want of necessaries. Which of the two candidates is likely to be preferred by a working man who hears his children cry for more bread? I seriously apprehend that you will, in some such season of adversity as I have described, do things which will prevent prosperity from returning; that you will act like people who should, in a year of scarcity, devour all the seed corn, and thus make the next year a year, not of scarcity, but of absolute famine. There will be, I fear, spoliation. The spoliation will increase the distress. The distress will produce fresh spoliation. There is nothing to stop you. Your constitution is all sail and no anchor. As I said before, when a society has entered on this downward progress, either civilisation or liberty must perish. Either some Caesar or Napoleon will seize the reins of government with a strong hand; or your republic will be as fearfully plundered and laid waste by barbarians in the twentieth Century as the Roman Empire was in the fifth; - with this difference, that the Huns and Vandals who ravaged the Roman Empire came from without, and that your Huns and Vandals will have been engendered within your own country by your own institutions. Thinking thus, of course, I cannot reckon Jefferson among the benefactors of mankind... / I have the honor to be, / Dear Sir,

Your faithful Servant,
T B Macaulay" (not Alexis De Tocqueville, after all)

We are doomed.

This country has just seen the seeds of its destruction begin to bloom. Obama will continue to bankrupt this country and proceed on his plan to diminish democracy bit by bit, encouraging class warfare and divisiveness, turning us into a socialist, dependent, sadistic, self-centered America that rewards a prominent Democrat talking-head saying on national television that he is "so glad we had that [Hurricane Sandy] last week" so that Obama got the chance to look Presidential thus helping him win re-election.

I am terrified. This isn't America anymore. When 50% of the voting population has bought all Obama's deceptions and ability to accuse opponents of the very things he himself is guilty of, we are doomed as a country of freedom. Obama will double or triple the $5 Trillion in debt he's already added to our backs. My son and his future children will wonder what happened to the America they were promised, when all that's left is paying more and more taxes and fees to help Obama redistribute the wealth to those who've been taught by Obama it's better to sit in the cart. When Obama grants unconditional amnesty and Insta-Citizenship to 12 million illegals in his second term, he'll have guaranteed the lock on electing only the Democratic Party forever, still representing only half the populace, probably half of which has only been baldly indoctrinated in their schools to believe Obama and the Democrat mantras. He doesn't care about America; he cares about himself, his re-election and his power. If he truly cared about America, he wouldn't so clearly denigrate all the legal immigrants who did it the right, hard-working way.

That new 12 million votes will just seal our nation's doom. If you ran your household, your family's budget, as Obama and Democrats run the country, you'd be out of work and on the street with nothing before long. As I heard on local talk radio today, we are "going Greece", very soon.

My freedom of religion, will be gone when the HHS mandate is enforced against Catholic hospitals and charitable organzations this coming year.

Freedom of speech, as in, you know, The Bill Of Rights' First Amendment, will become illegal as Obama's surrogate Pelosi--a 1%-er herself--and 27 other elected Democrats have their way in criminalizing our right to criticize the government's composition and operation:

"[The] 'People's Rights Amendment' declares that the Constitution protects only the rights of 'natural persons,' not such persons organized in corporations, and that Congress can impose on corporations whatever restrictions Congress deems 'reasonable.' Newspapers, magazines, broadcasting entities, online journalism operations — and most religious institutions — are corporate entities. McGovern’s amendment would strip them of all constitutional rights. By doing so, the amendment would empower the government to do much more than proscribe speech. Ilya Somin of George Mason University Law School...notes that government, unleashed by [this] amendment, could regulate religious practices at most houses of worship, conduct whatever searches it wants, reasonable or not, of corporate entities, and seize corporate-owned property for whatever it deems public uses — without paying compensation. Yes, [this] scythe would mow down the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, as well as the First."

I listened to Romney's concession speech, and I wept. Obama would never have had the grace and the class that Romney has, he could never have been so humble and eager to re-unify the country for its own sake even while stinging from the defeat. Obama would have been seeking "revenge," hidden in his words because he thinks he's "the best speechwriter" he knows. America, 50% of you chose the wrong man to unify and lead this country.

And the Democrat talking-heads of course already are in ink saying Obama has a "mandate." When you only have 50% of the voting public, you have no mandate. But Obama will proceed as if he has one, because, after all, he is Obama, and it's all always about you, Mr. President, isn't it?

The Dow plunged almost 200 points this morning reacting to who won.

UPDATE: THe day after Obama's re-election, the Dow had its worst day in one year, the the fifth worst day in Wall Street history, dropping 313 total points in one day, and continued to drop the next day, down another 121 points on Thursday, bringing the 2-day total to 434..."[D]uring the two days after Obama was elected in 2008, the Dow plunged more than 900 points."

The country as we know it, will be going downhill fast now. Like the fall of the Roman Empire. All empires fall, or fall back, to some degree. It's America's time, and I'd prayed and wished it wasn't going to be so. We are getting the government we have deserved for a long time. It is payback time. It is payback for the self-centered, gimmegimme, godless culture of 50% of the country, soon to be greater than 50%. We are now going to reap what we have sown or let others sow for us. And we are going to suffer, even more than we have recently, for it. And I'm terrified. For my son and his future family, most of all, and all those in those generations.

I'm going to have to move to a red state. I can't take this anymore. This ignorance, this indoctrination. Obama is not my President. I didn't vote for him, twice. But he is not my President moreoever because he doesn't represent me or about 49% of us, and never has. If you can't beat 'em, leave 'em.

I now honestly wish for a secession of the states with majorities who clearly see the truth because they don't swallow what the college professors, Jon Stewart, Rachel Maddow or Chris Matthews tell them. I'm not the first to think about this:

"Europe may in the not-too-distant future end up as it was in the 16th century, before the rise of the nation state. If current trends continue, the United States may unwind in the reverse of the manner in which frontiers became territories and then states. No entity is ensured perpetual union. The process of forming nations and empires and then disassembling them back into small city states or provincial units is certainly not novel, but rather ancient, and more likely fluid and cyclical than linear — even if the process takes decades or at times centuries. When an empire or even a nation state can no longer guarantee locals that the increased security and wealth of a vast union makes it well worth transcending their parochial customs and ethnic profiles, then we have a Greece of 1,500 city states, or a medieval Europe of castles and moats.
...
"Shrinking Western populations with growing numbers of elderly and unemployed can no longer sustain their present level of redistributive taxation and entitlements. Europe, which can endure neither the disease of insolvency nor the supposed medicine of austerity, is only a decade ahead of what we should expect here in the United States, or what we see now in California — a construct more than a state, where the Central Valley is to the coast as Mississippi is to Massachusetts...A Texan not only wants us out of the U.N., but may feel he is already out of the U.S.

"Voters are also disgusted with government, and feel that their overseers are not even subject to the consequences of what they impose on others: We expect the Obamas to trash the 1 percent as they jet to Martha’s Vineyard, or a zillionaire John Kerry to demand higher taxes as he seeks to avoid them on his yacht..."

Obama can keep the two coasts with the exception of South Carolina and Alaska, and the upper Midwest except Indiana, and form The United Socialist States of Obama. (He'd like that, actually): "a postmodern Pacific Coast and New England, an Hispanic zone extending 200 miles north of the Mexican border, and a rusting Great Lakes industrial belt with its inner cities, all in loose alliance — as our red/blue Electoral College maps suggest — against the Plains states, the Rocky Mountains, and the South..."

Then he can continue to eliminate democracy, eliminate term limits so he can be King for Life since he's so fond of circumventing Congress with his executive orders, institute his labor unions as his army (the overwhelming majority of military personnel would come with us, excpet for Colin Powell, I suppose), get more and more people on foodstamps and dependent on the Great HIM and let in more illegals. Oh, wait, then he wouldn't need to do that because everyone would already be in his pocket and they'd quaintly "vote" for him anyway, believing they still had a "say" in how they were governed.

After all, it was Obama himself who stridently urged Americans to think it's only "us vs. them"...

"Barack Obama and his administration apparently believed that by asserting a fictitious Republican war on women, by fostering a new racial divide of 'punish our enemies' and 'nation of cowards,' by claiming a new economic Mason-Dixon line between the 99 percent and the suspect few who make over $250,000, and by running up $5 trillion in debt in less than four years, they could cobble together majority support for their neo-socialist agenda.

"That divisiveness proved as foolish as borrowing $5 trillion to increase the number of dependent constituents. Well before Obama emerged from his Chicago organizing, there were already forces of political disunion in the West brought about by demography, globalization, and an out-of-touch technocracy — ill winds that he should have calmed rather than fanned. Indeed, Obama himself from 2002 to 2008 lectured about red/blue divides, and warned us about people like himself who would seek to exploit them for partisan advantage.

"Somehow in just four years Obama has almost done to the United States what it took Brussels apparatchiks three decades to do to the European Union: alienated the people both from their technocracy and from themselves. The results could be medieval."

So much for "The Post-Partisan President."

I think that secession would be a better future than the Obama-PAC-encouraged "burn this motherf***er down" future which would be due to the exact same causes as the already-happening riots in England and riots in Greece and riots in Spain.

I'll keep my guns and religion, thank you, instead of what Obama has brought down upon us and is about to.

How can they call the projection when Ohio, Florida and Virginia are in virtual deadheats as of this moment, 12:20am? They've "given" Ohio to Obama, but can't call Florida or Virginia? Ohio is closer than Florida is in vote counts right now, according to RealClearPolitics.com. Romney should condede NOTHING right now.

How do they just "give" Obama Colorado with a 3.3 % lead and only 52% of precincts counted? Or Minnesota with a 3.7% lead and only 56% counted?

Romney also has been ahead on the popular vote all night.

Of course, Obama will think he's gotten a landslide mandate, again.

Yet when Romney wins these percentages of the votes in typically dark blue states, Obama should curb his unbridled arrogance, but of course he won't: Pennsylvania: 46.6%
New Jersey: 40.6%
Connecticut: 43.5%
New Hampshire: 46.5%
Michigan: 46.7%
New Mexico: 43.2%
Oregon: 43.3%

This means there's no mandate. If Romney had only come in the 30s in those states, Obama could rightfully claim the vast, overwhelming majority was on his side.

...
I had a whole lot more written, then the stupid, damn browser I haven't updated, crashed on me, losing all the more important stuff I'd just written. I'm at the end of my rope and can't re-create it all now. I'm too disgusted and distraught. I really hate technology right now.

 

When in doubt, trust your gut. BOTH men are multimillionaires, both men have lived lives of wealth, and Obama was never less than middle-class (especially being able to afford Catholic private schools when a child).

But do you honestly think for a minute that Obama would shut down his political campaign (the thing most near and dear to his heart since he never ran a business), fly 30 colleagues to New York City and organize a 48-hour search for the missing daughter of one of those colleagues, only to help FIND THE YOUNG GIRL? ROMNEY DID.

Obama wouldn't do such a thing. Obama DIDN'T shut down his campaign to work on saving our Benghazi ambassador and three other brave Americans who were being slaughtered by an organized, heavily-armed, Sharia-Islamic multi-pronged group of terrorists. No, he flew to Las Vegas for fundraisers and campaigning the very next day. Obama, who never avoided a photo-opp that would help him personally, was not photo-opped in the Situation Room overnight or the next day or EVER when His administration listened to real-time audio and in some cases some video, and had ongoing Flash messages and top priority emails all night long (more on those just came out this week), and no one sent the air or other support those Americans were expecting when Ty Woods gave away his own position by laser-targeting the terrorists' mortar fire position so that the expected air support would bomb them. They would never have painted the target unless they believed, as reports have said, that there was an AC130 gunship and possibly an armed drone nearby. Instead, by laser-targeting the terrorist positions, he gave away his own position, and they mortarted him and Glen Doherty on that roof.

"[I]n October [2012], African American unemployment rose almost a full percentage point to 14.3 percent....African Americans were among the biggest losers in the housing bubble; well intentioned but ill advised policy changes intended to get more low income families and marginal households into home ownership kicked in just in time to lure African American families into the housing market at the peak of the bubble."

A First-Ever Tie in Dixville Notch, N.H.

Freezin' For a Reason

 

MITT ROMNEY, BUCKS COUNTY, Shady Brook Farm, PA, November 4, 2012

It's a dark photo, but out of my 25 tries, with a dying battery, I did get ONE clear picture of Mitt Romney. (Being nearsighted, it's doubly hard because I have to lower my glasses to use the camera but put them on to actually see into the distances.

The 7 plus hours on my feet in the cold, the windburned face, my arthritis killing me by hour 3, the 8-hour round trip drive, was sooooo worth it. The humble joy on his face as he shook our hands and allowed us all to grasp his arm or slap him on the shoulder, was really genuine.

And see the "WOMEN FOR MITT" sign in the lower right corner? There were TONS of women holding those signs. And the man whose face is directly behind and below Romney? Former PA Gov. Tom Ridge, who also spoke earlier.

The rest of the even-halfway decent photos follow.

I arrived about 1:30pm. This was the line ahead of me as I approached. Doors were supposed to open at 2:30pm.

 

Below is the line BEHIND me after about 2 hours. All that grassy area (and then some) in the first photo? Now packed with people. From 7 years of age to 70, tons of college students and young 20s and 30s. With their families in some cases. People as far as the eye could see. The "doors" (14 metal detectors with actual TSA folks operating them) didn't open till 4pm, and even once we were inside, dozens of busloads kept coming and the lines of those walking from distant parking areas stretched down the street, both ways, past the points we could see, backed up and slowly, steadily walking, streaming in.

 

Standing directly under the biggest American Flag I've ever been that close to, one of three suspended from huge cranes.

 

I was second from the rail, straight ahead in this photo, on the left side of the stage, just behind these folks. Note that dark platform in front of us about 10 feet away. It's the "runway" on which Mitt and Ann Romney arrived.

 

One of the three bleachers, packed.

 

The middle of the three bleachers, soon to be packed.

 

The third bleacher, far right, fuzzy photo, but loved the light-star, like a lit candle, at the top of the crane.

 

Still fuzzy, but the best photo I could get of The Marshall Tucker Band.

 

Figures he'd wave just as I snapped the photo. That's Romney arriving on the platform from the left, with Ann just barely visibly on his left arm. The bus (see later photo) pulled up right through the WELCOME TO BUCKS COUNTY, PA entryway to huge roars from the crowd, pulling right up to the end of that runway.

 

The bus. About 50 feet from where I stood. This was after the rally was over and Romney was back on the bus, but the music was blasting and people just didn't want to leave till the bus left.

 

Welcome to Bucks County, indeed, Mr. Romney.

 

Welcome to Pennsylvania. GO RED TODAY!