Tuesday, December 4, 2012

Majority of young voters wants bigger government


By Robby Soave On 5:02 PM 11/28/2012 @ 5:02 PM In Daily Caller News 

Nearly 6 in 10 young voters support bigger government — a worrisome statistic for conservatives who want to increase their presence on college campuses and among the under-30 crowd.
According to the Pew Research Center, 59 percent of young voters think the government should do more — something only 44 percent of all voters support. On government-run healthcare, the most popular policy preference among young voters was to expand it.
Young voters were also far more likely to identify as liberals and members of the Democratic Party than older generations.
For young conservative activists, making inroads on college campuses will be no easy task.
“The rise in young people embracing paternalistic government comes as no shock,” said Gabriella Hoffman, a field coordinator for the Leadership Institute, in an email to The Daily Caller News Foundation. “Most have developed contempt for free enterprise and limited government from their college professors who inject anti-free market, socialist and even Marxist views into their lectures.”
Students with non-liberal views need to fight back, or be drowned out entirely, she said.
“If students don’t expose this bias and bombard their campuses with alternative viewpoints, then more young people will become slaves to the government.”
The youth vote was instrumental in achieving President Barack Obama’s re-election, according to Pew. Obama beat Mitt Romney by 24 points among voters under 30 year of age.
Follow Robby on Twitter
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Article printed from The Daily Caller: http://dailycaller.com
URL to article: http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/28/majority-of-young-voters-wants-bigger-government/

Pravda: The communists have won in America with Obama!



Pravda made a bold statement over the weekend: the communists have won in America with Barack Obama. Why? Because, much like Russia’s past communist leaders, Americans re-elected him for a second term without so much as a stated economic strategy for success. No one could disagree with the Russian “news” outlet.
“This is Pravda. And they are saying Obama is bringing America old‑style Soviet Communist practices. And Putin is perfect and he has learned. Again it’s only spin. They are only trying to make us look bad, but what they’re saying about what we’re doing is 100% accurate,” “And I love this: Obama was recently reelected for a second term by an illiterate society, and he is ready to continue his lies of less taxes while he raises them. He gives speeches of peace and love in the world while he promotes wars as he did in Egypt, Libya, and Syria. He plans his next war with Iran as he fires or demotes his generals who get in the way.”
TheBlaze reported that the majority of the article contrasts Obama and Putin, portraying Putin as a traditional American conservative interested in lowering taxes and shrinking government in order to grow the economy. As noted above, most of this is just spin for Putin. But much of what Pravda says about Obama following many of the old school communist tactics are also true.
Pravda writer Xavier Lermer said, “Christianity in the U.S. is under attack as it was during the early period of the Soviet Union when religious symbols were against the law.”
He also wrote of Obama, “He is a Communist without question promoting the Communist Manifesto without calling it so. How shrewd he is in America. His cult of personality mesmerizes those who cannot go beyond their ignorance. They will continue to follow him like those fools who still praise Lenin and Stalin in Russia. Obama’s fools and Stalin’s fools share the same drink of illusion.”

IRS aims to clarify investment income tax under healthcare law

Reuters ^ | 12/3/2012 | Patrick Temple-West

(Reuters) - The Internal Revenue Service has released new rules for investment income taxes on capital gains and dividends earned by high-income individuals that passed Congress as part of the 2010 healthcare reform law.

The 3.8 percent surtax on investment income, meant to help pay for healthcare, goes into effect in 2013. It is the first surtax to be applied to capital gains and dividend income.

The tax affects only individuals with more than $200,000 in modified adjusted gross income (MAGI), and married couples filing jointly with more than $250,000 of MAGI.

The tax applies to a broad range of investment securities ranging from stocks and bonds to commodity securities and specialized derivatives.

The 159 pages of rules spell out when the tax applies to trusts and annuities, as well as to individual securities traders.

(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...

Jobless Benefits At Risk in Fiscal Cliff Debate! (something for everyone!)

Stateline.org ^ | By Jake Grovum, Staff Writer

Amid the fervor over the fiscal cliff in Washington, there’s one federal program also facing a Dec. 31, 2012 deadline that if allowed to pass could cost unemployed Americans thousands of dollars and deprive states of crucial federal funding that’s helped them weather the worst of the Great Recession.
At the end of this year, unemployment benefits that were greatly expanded during the recession are set to expire unless Congress acts to extend them. All told, more than $250 billion has been spent toward unemployment benefits over the past five years, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). It’s estimated more than 2 million Americans are currently receiving the expanded benefits and the total cost reached $94 billion in the last fiscal year alone.
Now, though, the debate over extending the jobless benefits has become mired in negotiations over the fiscal cliff, the mix of spending cuts and tax increases set to take effect Jan. 1, 2013 to lower the federal deficit. The $30 billion price tag for extending the entirety of the expanded benefits is too costly, some deficit-wary lawmakers say. President Barack Obama included the provision in his initial offer to Republicans last week, which they quickly rejected.
The extended benefits allowed unemployed Americans to receive benefits far longer than they usually would have. At its longest, the benefits allowed for 99 weeks of unemployment, compared to just 26 weeks under normal circumstances.
As the recovery took hold, Congress has pared back the more generous benefits depending on a state’s unemployment rate. No state currently offers the full 99 weeks, but all offer some form of extended assistance.
But that could come to an abrupt end at the end of this month, and many worry both the economic benefits and the help they offer the unemployed are being lost in the fiscal cliff debate.
The benefit to the economy, even during the worst of the recession, has been significant. The program is seen as a better stimulus of demand for goods and services than many other initiatives, and the CBO says extending the current benefits for another year would boost the economy and create 300,000 jobs next year alone.
But the stakes are also substantial for states and their budgets. As part of the expanded program, the federal government paid for a significant part of the expansion. Normally a jointly funded state-federal initiative, the additional federal money freed states from having to rely on already-stretched unemployment insurance trust funds to help the unemployed.
Those trust funds are designed to cover unemployment benefits and ebb and flow with the economy. They comprise taxes on both employers and wages, and are meant to remain flush during a strong economy and be drawn down when unemployment spikes.
But they’ve been battered by the recession. States collectively are carrying more than $26 billion in debt and billions more in mounting interest, having borrowed more than $50 billion from Washington in recent years to offset cash-strapped funds. As Stateline previously reported, those debts have already forced many states to scale back benefits even as they continue to face high joblessness.
If the expanded benefits are allowed to expire, advocates warn, it would be not only a significant blow to the unemployed, but also would leave many states with decimated trust funds unable to offer benefits to help those still without a job.
What’s more, current law says states facing a deficit in their trust funds are required to repay that debt or raise taxes to make up the difference. There’s worry such a tax increase could dampen still-weak economic growth.
Faced with this scenario, Congress could enact a one-year “holiday” on both repayment and the required tax increases, something the CBO estimates would cost just $3 billion in the next fiscal year.
But while that would help states and defray some of the economic fallout of the expiring benefits, it wouldn’t save the unemployed currently relying on the expanded benefits. Meanwhile, just allowing those currently receiving benefits to continue into next year could cost as much as $14 billion, the CBO estimates.
Many advocates worry that ultimately, it will be the budgetary realities of the fiscal cliff and federal deficit that dictate what happens to the unemployment benefits rather than consideration of their effect on the jobless, state budgets and the broader economy.
Negotiations between the White House and congressional leaders are expected to continue well into this month as both sides work to avoid the fiscal cliff. How much attention the jobless benefits will received in the broader debate, though, is uncertain.

Choke the Life out of Obamacare!

Townhall.com ^ | December 4, 2012 | Chuck Norris

Now that Obama has been re-elected and Democrats still control the Senate, Republicans no longer have the chance to repeal Obamacare.

But all is not lost. There's still an opportunity for America to stop this disaster by choking the life out of the federal monstrosity. Obama's signature legislative achievement is likely headed back to the Supreme Court.

Just last week, the high court ordered a lower federal court to take up a lawsuit by the patriots at Liberty University, who claim Congress violated the college's religious freedoms by forcing it to provide federally mandated insurance and requiring payment for abortion-related services.
Liberty University also argues that the individual mandate is unconstitutional because it infringes on the free exercise of religion by forcing citizens to fund abortion.
"God created human life. Its sanctity and dignity are protected by God," said Mathew Staver, chairman of Liberty Counsel, who represents Liberty University in the case. "We have no right to take innocent human lives, and certainly we cannot be forced to fund the taking of innocent life -- basically forced to fund murder. We can't do that. That's a line that we simply cannot cross."
Staver is absolutely right: There's no middle ground in this fight. Citizens and employers shouldn't be forced to choose between obeying the law and honoring the Sixth Commandment.
This month, federal courts have blocked the Obama administration from imposing its contraceptive mandate on Tyndale, a Bible publisher, and O'Brien Industrial Holdings, a Missouri mining company. The Christian-owned craft chain, Hobby Lobby, is fighting a similar legal battle against the mandate. The company says fines could reach as much as $1 million a day if it doesn't cover abortion-inducing drugs for its employees. About three-dozen Christian companies and colleges are fighting the mandate in court.
In June, President Obama said, "(Insurance companies) are required to provide free preventive care like checkups and mammograms ... ." The law also subsidizes care for people who pay more than 8 percent of their income for health insurance.
But Obamacare isn't "free." The money must come from somewhere. Even if patients don't pay for their health care directly, Americans face higher taxes to fund the facilities, doctors and services.
When consumers perceive health care to be "free," they use more medical services and create an overwhelming demand for them -- which will eventually exceed supply. Then, government will be faced with a limited number of options: 1) ration health services, 2) increase the cost of your health care or 3) ignore the issue, as patients' access to health care is severely restricted.
We see these issues arise in other countries with national health care. Patients in Britain and Canada often face long wait times -- even in emergency rooms -- to receive basic care that's so accessible here in the U.S. In fact, Europeans and Canadians are known to travel to the U.S. rather than wait for their own health services.
My wife, Gena, and I have been to other countries that have socialized medicine, and it doesn't work out well for people. When we visited Russia some 15 years ago, a young lady in her 20s suffered from a toothache. When asked why she didn't see a dentist, the woman said the care is too expensive and even seeing a doctor could mean waiting eight months to a year.
To make matters worse, Obamacare calls for establishment of an Independent Payment Advisory Board, made up of 15 unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats who make a wide range of health care decisions -- including the ability to approve or deny medical treatments recommended by your doctors.
It's no wonder so many states are outright refusing to cooperate with Washington on this massive federal power grab.
Obama's takeover calls for states to expand Medicaid, creating serious fiscal liabilities for the states if federal taxpayers don't pick up the bill every year. Obamacare also requires states to develop governmental programs that will create online health "exchanges," itemizing available health plans.
For Florida alone, "startup costs 'are projected at $92.3 million' through next year, and annual operating costs to the state -- based on experience in Illinois -- could range from $57.4 million to $88.6 million by 2016."
States shudder at the thought of being saddled with the cost of running those exchanges, especially when they have so little local control under this federal program. They have until Dec. 14 to tell the Obama administration whether they will set up exchanges or default to a federal version.
In 2010, John Graham, director of health care studies at the Pacific Research Institute, urged states to boycott the exchanges.
"States establishing Obamacare exchanges are making a one-way, lose-lose bet," he wrote. "If Obamacare persists, exchanges will become bloated administrative nightmares."
Obama's federal takeover of the nation's health insurance is unconstitutional on its face. It exceeds Congress' power to regulate commerce among the states. It expands the federal government's authority beyond the enumerated powers listed in the Constitution. It threatens religious liberty, and it imposes an unconstitutional tax on Americans.
If we can't repeal Obamacare in its entirety, let's support each of these efforts to peel away every one of its unconstitutional layers to preserve our liberty, the quality of American health care and the fiscal stability of our nation.

State Department Spent 4.5 Million for Embassy Art, Had No Money for Benghazi Security!

FRONTPAGEMAG ^ | December 2, 2012 | Daniel Greenfield

Remember Benghazi only happened because the State Department had no money for security. And the military had no money for planes. And Obama had no money for his campaign and had to rush to Vegas to fundraise with Beyonce.

Things that the State Department did have money for? Mosque renovations, promoting environmental awareness in Baghdad, and 4.5 million for Art in Embassies.

(Excerpt) Read more at frontpagemag.com ...

Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s Greatest Hits


Republicans think they got a bit of good news this morning with the announcement that President Obama has asked Debbie Wasserman Schultz to continue as chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee. The Florida congresswoman will now lead the party through the 2014 mid-term elections.
No one doubts that Wasserman Schultz is a tireless fundraiser. Her office says she participated in 885 events in 170 cities in 31 states during the last 18 months. “She’s a leader for women, and the grassroots love her,” a senior Democratic adviser told Politico.

That’s all true, but Republicans believe “Debbie will remain Debbie” and provide them with an ongoing catalogue of bizarre statements that will be politically useful. Take some examples of her greatest hits from her tenure to date:

In August of this year, she was forced to admit on CNN that changes to Medicare in Representative Paul Ryan’s budget would not actually affect people over age 55. “After trying for the better part of four minutes to suggest that those who are senior citizens today would lose their coverage, Wasserman Schultz finally admitted that wasn’t true,” The Atlantic magazine reported.
Also in August, the DNC chairwoman appeared on Fox News Sunday and was asked about an infamous Priorities USA ad which dishonestly implied that Mitt Romney was responsible for a woman’s death from cancer. Pressed on whether the ad was appropriate, Wasserman Schultz claimed she had “no idea of the political affiliation of folks affiliated with the super PAC.”
The next day, she spun 180 degrees on CNN when asked about that statement: “Of course I know that the Priorities USA is a Democratic-affiliated super PAC,” she cheerfully acknowledged. “The point I was trying to make was the ad was produced by a separate organization, an organization that we don’t coordinate with and we have nothing to do with.”
“We own the economy,” she declared at a breakfast sponsored by Politico in June 2011. “We own the beginning of the turnaround, and we want to make sure that we continue that pace of recovery.” The economy, she said, “has turned around” since President Obama took office, leaving many reporters who had asked her about rising unemployment numbers scratching their heads in puzzlement. “I’ve really seen such a velocity of spin with so little heft behind it,” one told me.
That same month in 2011, Wasserman Schultz claimed that Republicans “want to literally drag us all the way back to Jim Crow laws and literally and very transparently block access to the polls to voters who are more likely to vote for Democratic candidates than Republican candidates. And it’s nothing short of that blatant.” Their crime? Republican governors had recently signed laws that require voters to show photo ID at the polls, a position backed by more than 80 percent of Americans in many published surveys.
The week before that statement, Ms. Wasserman Schultz announced that the GOP was engaged in “a war on women” and for good measure was backing a Medicare reform plan that would allow insurance companies to “throw you to the wolves” and “deny you coverage and drop you for preexisting conditions.” This prompted Factcheck.org to declare her statements on Medicare “simply wrong.”
But her biggest faux pas may have come when she accused Republicans of being against having a U.S. car industry. “If it were up to the candidates for president on the Republican side, we would be driving foreign cars,” she told reporters at a 2011 meeting organized by the Christian Science Monitor. “They would have let the auto industry in America go down the tubes.” According to Florida motor-vehicle records, the Wasserman Schultz household owns a 2010 Infiniti FX35, a Japanese car. The car was hers, and its license plate even included her initials. Wasserman Schultz responded to that news by accusing her critics of trying to distract people from the substance of her point.
The reason Wasserman Schultz rarely touches on substance is because she is too busy throwing out incendiary rhetoric that can’t stand up to scrutiny. Republicans can only say: Long may she reign at the DNC.

Analyst Makes Bombshell Prediction Of $50 Oil, More Production Than Possibly Know What To Do With!

Business Insider ^ | December 1, 2012 | Joe Weisenthal

For the US economy, this would be a 'Black Swan' of a totally different variety.
In Bank of America/Merrill Lynch's 2013 Energy Outlook, analyst Sabine Schels and colleagues make a shocking prediction about the possible path of West Texas Intermediate oil.
Surging US shale oil output creates risk of $50 WTI North America’s energy supplies are surging while the rest of the world continues to fight for scarce molecules of oil and gas. On our estimates, onshore US crude oil output now vastly exceeds previous growth rates in liquids and nat gas, particularly in Lower 48 states. With profitability for US domestic oil producers very high and no change in sight to US rules preventing crude oil exports, we expect WTI prices to continue to lag international prices. Indeed, we see a risk of WTI temporarily falling to $50/bbl over the next 24 months to force a slowdown in supply growth or a change in crude oil export rules.
A key point that Schels & Co. make is that the crude oil market could come to resemble the Natural Gas market. In the natural gas market, the US has natural gas coming out of its ears, as it just has way more supply coming out of the ground than it could possibly use or export. So while prices remain decent throughout much of the world, domestic natural gas prices have collapsed...
(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...

Squaaawk!

Posted Image

Marxmas

Posted Image

The Compromise

Posted Image

Communist Manifesto

Posted Image

Barry Christmas

Posted Image

Equality

Posted Image

Timbo Tax

Posted Image

HIS Tax Plan

Posted Image

Why Work?

Posted Image

Wimpy Plan

Posted Image

Food Stamps

Posted Image

Smash the system!

Posted Image

Poop on the brain!

Posted Image

Largest Jackpot

Posted Image

You First

Posted Image

No Can Kicking

Posted Image

Pundits

Posted Image

The News

Posted Image

IDIOT!

Posted Image

Gambling

Posted Image

Underwear Change

Posted Image

Press Conference

Posted Image

Hawaiian Vacation

Posted Image

Rice & Baloney

Posted Image

Nation that re-elected Obama wants more spending cuts than tax hikes, still hates Obamacare!

Hot Air.com ^ | December 3, 2012 | MARY KATHARINE HAM


Look, I don’t even know anymore. I’m just gonna put these out there for you as yet another indication of how tough getting anywhere close to solving our deficit and debt problems is. It’s a nice complement to the latest in the fiscal cliff saga, in which allegedly intractable, unreasonable Republicans offer a Simpson-Bowles-like compromise that might actually come within a couple ballparks of acknowledging our debt problems while Democrats seem rather enthusiastic about cliff-diving and yet the press and public are determined to blame Republicans for going over.
Let’s see if that can change in the near future. Presumably it should if the press reports that a realistic compromise is on the table that— hey, looky here— aligns with the public’s and the press’ professed desires, but early signs show it’s being treated unseriously in the press. Heck, even a plurality of Obama voters want the deficit dealt with by making more spending cuts than tax hikes:
A survey of 800 Obama voters, conducted last month by Benenson Strategy Group for the moderate Democratic think tank Third Way and shared first with POLITICO, finds that 96 percent believe the federal deficit is a problem and that 85 percent support increasing taxes on the wealthy.
Yet 41 percent who supported the Democratic incumbent want to get control of the deficit mostly by cutting spending, with only some tax increases, while another 41 percent want to solve it mostly with tax increases and only some spending cuts.
Just 5 percent of Obama supporters favor tax increases alone to solve the deficit, half the number who back an approach that relies entirely on spending cuts.
Too bad they all voted for the man who’s offering a rather more unbalanced approach than Republicans. And, you read that right— double the number of Obama supporters want to deal with the deficit entirely by cutting spending than want to do it entirely by raising taxes.
In other news, voters still hate ObamaCare, especially independents:
Meanwhile, according to polling by CNN, registered voters oppose Obamacare by a margin of 10 points — 52 to 42 percent. Independents like Obamacare even less, opposing it by a margin of 22 points — 57 to 35 percent. Clearly, voters didn’t think they were ratifying Obamacare when they pulled the lever for Obama.
And, finally, “[f]or the first time in Gallup trends since 2000, a majority of Americans say it is not the federal government’s responsibility to make sure all Americans have healthcare coverage.” Okay.
The shift away from the view that the government should ensure healthcare coverage for all began shortly after President Barack Obama’s election and has continued the past several years during the discussions and ultimate passage of the Affordable Care Act in March 2010. Americans are divided on that legislation today — 48% approve and 45% disapprove — as they have been over the last several years.
Republicans, including Republican-leaning independents, are mostly responsible for the drop since 2007 in Americans’ support for government ensuring universal health coverage. In 2007, 38% of Republicans thought the government should do so; now, 12% do. Among Democrats and Democratic leaners there has been a much smaller drop, from 81% saying the government should make sure all Americans are covered in 2007 to 71% now.
healthcare
A warning for Democrats prepared to use ObamaCare’s upcoming failures as a rationale for single-payer:
One thing that has not changed is that Americans still widely prefer a system based on private insurance to one run by the government. Currently, 57% prefer a private system and 36% a government-run system, essentially the same as in 2010 and 2011. Prior to the passage of the Affordable Care Act in 2010, the percentage of Americans in favor of a government-run system ranged from 32% to 41%.
Another redemptive data point for those who say nominating the one guy who couldn’t effectively argue against ObamaCare was a mistake. For the record, I agreed with that assessment, but also was unconvinced others didn’t have equal liabilities.
As the conventional wisdom has it, we are a nation divided— perhaps into multiple personalities.

Author unknown, but I think he speaks for millions.

Dear Friends,

I was asked yesterday if I was "okay" ... and frankly the answer is no, not at all, not even close. I'm on auto-pilot right now, just going through the motions in a world that has fundamentally changed for the worse and will never be the same again. I haven't slept much more than a few minutes in the last 48-hours with my mind trying to understand what happened on Tuesday... reading, watching Robin Hood again, sitting next to a waterfall, working on my book, listening to music... nothing has worked because my thoughts keep instantly returning to the fact that the country I grew up believing in and loving died this week... and not from a major catastrophe compliments of Mother Nature, a Biblical plague, or an invasion of a foreign country... worse... what once was the greatest country in the world committed suicide by voting to reward wrong!
More of less? I truly don't understand.
Unless one admits to being a leech, a thief, a traitor, or totally terminally retarded... i.e., a Kool-Aid gulping Democrat... how could anyone vote for four more years of the worst President, bar none, in the history of this country? I mean I get it the first time, though I didn't agree...no known history, the vapid patter sounded good and it was a chance to pat oneself on the back for putting the first black man in the Oval Office. I even understand how the brain dead, zombied by the incessant braying of the national media, could see their ballot casting as a negation of the George Bush years. But now? How does one ignore all the stuff that has happened in the last four years?
How?
How does someone vote for a party that booed God at their convention? How does a Jew vote for regime that shows disdain for our only Mideast friend, Israel, and is about to allow Iran to go nuclear? How does a Catholic vote for the party that wants to override their beliefs through caveats about abortion and contraception in Obamacare? How does one ignore what happened in Libya on 9/11... an administration that for misguided political expediency ignored our embassy's requests for security, watched four Americans murdered and did nothing as pleas of help were sent its way for over seven hours, and then lied to the American people for weeks and covered up what actually took place and why? How does one ignore the Justice Department breaking the law with its Fast and Furious program and giving weapons to Mexican criminals which has resulted in over a hundred deaths, including the loss of United States Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry... or the cover-up which is still taking place at the behest of this President and his "powers?" How does someone want millions more of taxpayer dollars to go into Obama donor pockets behind the disguise of investments in solar energy like Solyndra and so many others? How does one ignore the cost of gasoline? How does one ignore how much it costs to buy simple groceries these days? How does one look the other way and not rage over the killing of the Keystone Pipeline ... a project which would allow the country to move away from a need to seek our energy from Muslim maniacs, along with lowering the cost of fuel and creating thousands of jobs? Those topics don't grab you, how about burying your head in the sand about our country going TRILLIONS of dollars deeper in debt and borrowing money from the Chinese, that foreign Obama endorsers are human scumbags like Putin, Chavez, and Castro, that the unemployment numbers are being cooked on a weekly basis and for months and months and months, were still over 8%, or he continual use of the race card against anyone that opposes the hideous policies of this administration?
Can anyone not be aware of the fact that the Progressives gleefully stooped to new lows during the campaign to slime an intelligent and decent man that has provided thousands with jobs and given millions to charity?
How does someone prefer a bombastic idiot like Joe Biden over a man like Paul Ryan? How can over 60% of the country want Obamacare repealed, and yet vote in a manner that locks in quite possibly forever, guaranteeing high costs and government bureaucratic nincompoops making life and death decisions about people's healthcare? How can this President be given four more years when he has established himself as so mendacious as to make a serial liar like Bill Clinton look like a fount of veracity and light? How can a vote be given to a cast of vermin that sues its own states for trying to protect their borders or prevent voter fraud by requiring a photo ID at polling stations? How can anyone that believes in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution cast their ballot for the communist and socialist vipers Obama has appointed to various government offices, or how he has used a myriad of executive orders to rule when his wants conflicted with laws passed by Congress?
And on and on ... a vote Tuesday for Obama was a vote to ignore all the horrors that have been taking place on a daily basis since he was sworn in!
And yet that is what happened Tuesday.
I live in a country called America, but it has barely any resemblance whatsoever to the nation I was born into or have read about in history books all my life ... a special place that was beacon of freedom and offered the chance for a person to rise on the sun of their labors. Not a land of wealth distribution, class warfare, and millions wanting the government to babysit them from womb to tomb ... and under the control of evil fouls like Obama, Biden, Pelosi, Reid, Waxman, and others of their ilk that in a more just reality would be stood up in front of firing squads for their malfeasance, theft, and treasonous acts.
So no, I'm not okay... and with the situation as it is I'm not sure I ever will be again. What I am at the moment is angry, sad, bitter, ashamed, sick, hurt, confused, disappointed and very fearful. Is there a word that blends all those feelings together... if there is that is me. Oh, and mix in this too...resolved to keep my belief in God and the moral values I've been taught and cherish intact to the last breath I take, loving all the friends and family I hold dear.

I 'm going to bite the bullet, too!!!! Will you join me?


President Obama ordered the cabinet to cut $100,000,000.00 ($100 million) from the $3,500,000,000,000.00 ($3.5 trillion) federal budget.

I 'm so impressed by this sacrifice that I have decided to do the same thing with my personal budget. I spend about $2,000 a month on groceries, household expenses, medicine, utilities, etc., but it ' s time to get out the budget cutting axe, go through my expenses, and cut back.

I 'm going to cut my spending at exactly the same ratio (1/35,000) of my total budget. After doing the math, it looks like instead of spending $2,000 a month, I 'm going to have to cut that number by six cents. Yes, I 'm going to have to get by with $1999.94, but that ' s what sacrifice is all about.

I 'll just have to do without some things, that are, frankly, luxuries ��� six cents worth.

Did this President actually think no one would do the math? Please send this to everyone on your list so people understand how idiotic a $100 million cut is in a $3.5 trillion budget . . .ludicrous.
"There are two ways to conquer and enslave a nation...
One is by sword...
The other is by debt."
John Adams 1826