Post Election Stress Disorder: What to do Until 2024

Sometimes the truth hurts.  Bad.

From Family Security Matters.

Post Election Stress Disorder: What to do Until 2024


All loss is traumatic to human beings. The consequences of severe loss--the loss of a loved one--may be life-long and inconsolable. A lesser loss--loss of a job perhaps, or a fortune--may take months or years to overcome. A World Series wager? A couple of bourbons and a good night's sleep.

But isn't it time you closed the book on the 2012 election? Good grief, it's been more than seven weeks now. Isn't it time you stopped replaying that first debate? Gave up re-analyzing the DVR of Karl Rove's 3-2-1 strategy of the Romney victory; and seeing Dick Morris declare again for the hundredth time that Romney was going to win with 300 electoral votes.

Isn't it time we gave up revisiting those horrible three hours on election night after the polls closed in Connecticut. Watching Brett Baier, all bright-eyed and bushy-tailed, as he proudly introduced the statisticians who would make the winning calls, and the guru strategists who would tell us what counties to follow as Romney's vote total mounted and it became clear that he had beaten Obama.

And when did the collars begin to wilt and spirits begin to sag? Ten? Ten-thirty? The swing states began to slide away. New Hampshire? What? What's going on? Virginia? We'll make it up with Iowa, and probably Wisconsin, right? Ohio looks bad...Florida slipping away further and further. Then it was suddenly clear--all of our hopes, our strategies, our future fantasies--all illusions...childish wishes.

Night-night Brett, Karl still sputtering, night-night Fox News.

Boo hoo. Sulk, sulk. Let's all go out and eat worms. Seven weeks feeling sorry for ourselves? Enough already. BASTA!

We lost, period! Obama may not have won a mandate, but we lost--definitively. Let's get past this, dust ourselves off, get back on the horse, cease this unending self-pity and start taking stock of our situation.

And the first thing we have to admit and face full on is that the executive branch of our government is locked up by the Democratic Party until 2024. Until 2016 by Obama and his leftist minions, and by the Clintons until 2024. The conservative bench has talent, youth, energy, and lots of smarts, but nobody who can stand up to the team of Bill and Hilary and the wealth and power that they could command in 2016--24. All of their past sins have been and will be forgiven and minimized by the media and their golden after-glow will carry them into the White House for eight solid years. To be sure, they are not leftist ideologues like Obama. They are more centrist and pragmatic but they will still govern left of center.

So barring a miracle of naughtiness or ill health or political error on the part of either Bill or Hillary, there is nothing that will stop Hillary from striving for and becoming America's first woman president. It is written.

Oh yes, there is one thing. Money. Lots of money.The Clintons like money and the things that only lots of money can buy--private jets, limousines always at the ready, dozens in staff, that cozy 7 bedroom beach cottage in the Hamptons with the pool and 75 foot dock, and of course their friends--rich and powerful celebrities. That kind of life takes a lot of jack. And maybe we've done enough public service, Bill, maybe it's time to settle down and build a little nest egg for our old age. A few best-sellers, lectures (at a couple of hundred thou per lecture), consultations, seats on various corporate and institutional boards (at fifty thousand a year)--it mounts up.

But no, Hillary Clinton is not likely to let this cup pass. Not on your life.

So what do we conservative losers do in the face of a Democratic monopoly of the Executive branch for the next twelve years? Several important components make up what might be a winning strategy.

First, we have twelve years to recruit a worthy candidate for the 2024 election, educate him or her, polish them up and construct a campaign strategy as good as or better than what the Obama team was able to do, which nobody can say wasn't brilliant--wicked but brilliant.

The second element in the strategy is containment. Containment was George Kennan's effective idea that helped defeat the Soviets in the Cold War. The West opposed every small attempt at expansion that the Soviets made. It was costly but in the long run it worked.

The Executive branch does not have a monopoly of power in the country and there are very powerful political assets that conservatives already possess and can easily increase. The White House can be surrounded and blocked to a considerable degree. First of all, the House--the branch with the power of the purse, is already in the hands of the Republicans. Then, so is the Supreme Court safely in conservative hands and its oldest members--Scalia and Thomas--are only 76 and in pretty good health. No reason to expect them to give up office before Obama does. And hopefully by the time Hillary becomes President the Senate will be in the hands of the Republicans too. In fact it is more than likely that the Republicans will take control in 2014.

Finally, a majority of governorships and state legislatures are already in Republican hands with the power to provide local solutions to local problems in ways that don't depend on centralized bureaucracy.

That is a pretty formidable array of power--the House, the Senate, the Supreme Court, the majority of governors and state legislatures--to contain the left-leaning inclinations of the Chief Executive.

But the single most important part of a new winning strategy is the creation of a new vision for the Republican Party. Not a leftist vision but a vision derived from our most profoundly held conservative values--the validity of our belief in private property and freedom as regulators of social intercourse.

It is as though the Republicans have been singing the right melody but have gotten the lyrics all screwed up. The Republican party is famous for being 1)the party of lower taxes, 2) the party of smaller government, 3) the party of deficit reduction, 4)the party of lower spending, and 5) the party of restricting women's reproductive freedom. Can you imagine that--the party that sets freedom above all other political values is famous for restricting a woman's freedom of choice.

It's no wonder we lost the election significantly. "Deficit reduction," "smaller government," "lower spending": these are very uninspiring slogans, the words of a dead and dying party--rich old geezers protecting their turf and their fortunes. This is not to say that that characterization of it was true but that it was successfully communicated to the naive electorate by the Democratic Party. The wrong words set to the right music. We need a new vision and a new song.

There is no doubt that the Republican Party must seize the new day. The usual Republican green eye-shade words--taxes, deficits, budgets--that make the public's eyes glaze over must be replaced by an inspiring ideology. And there is one ready to hand. One that emerges naturally out of the changes in social structure and technology. One that is based primarily on the fundamental conservative principle of political freedom. In twenty-first-century first-world America the Republican Party must become the party of free choice in all of the major aspects of our social, political, and economic lives. It is true that the founding fathers gave us freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and the other basic freedoms, but times and social structures have changed and the center does not seem to be holding.

The public school system, which was so successful in Americanizing millions of immigrants in the first half of the twentieth century, is corrupt, ineffective, and bankrupt. Not only are lower grades dumbed down but so-called higher education is almost meaningless in all but the sciences, and even in the sciences we have students who can't spell, can't write a paper, and have never read a single play of Shakespeare. The institutions are at war with one another--the public school teacher's unions fight the idea of charter schools, or school vouchers, or home schooling. And the Democratic Party's constituency remains the teacher's unions and the children of the underclass who fall further and further behind in their climb out of poverty and alienation

The only free choice the Democratic Party is willing to embrace is women's reproductive choice--they are against other important choices, such as freedom of school choice, freedom of medical choice, freedom of workplace choice (at least as it pertains to union membership), and freedom of choice for all phases of a worker's career including retirement.

It is the Republican Party that can and should inspire hope and the fulfillment of the American dream by advancing a program for freedom of choice in the life of every working American from kindergarten to retirement.

There is little question that the school system from top to bottom is disoriented, failing, largely overrated and outrageously expensive for all but the undeserving rich. There is also little question that the epoch of great arrays of expensive, beautiful campuses covered with ivy are things of the past, like libraries filled with real books, professorial tenure, and well-mannered, clean-shaven students. It is also well known that America's wealthiest and most creative individuals, Bill Gates and Steve Jobs--icons of the zeitgeist--were school dropouts, like Herman Melville, Mark Twain and others before them.

Do we really need "schools" any more? Large, expensive buildings with auditoria and classrooms? We live in a sea, an ocean, a hurricane, a tsunami of information, knowledge, opinion, description. There is no end of it. You can buy lectures, whole courses by the best teachers on DVDs; you can get them for free as podcasts from the best institutions. There is no document of any value or any text in the public domain that is not available on the internet. I can download an obscure Trollope novel onto my Kindle in less than 10 seconds free of charge.

There is now no reason why people need degrees or diplomas. In some technical professions like medicine people do need testing and licensing procedures to create and sustain minimal standards of practice, but experience suggests that most of what passes for higher education does not require a stamp of attendance or approval from an authority. The great variation between one student and another, and between one professor and another, is such that grades are almost meaningless.

Already there are for-profit universities in competition for the student's tuition dollar. The courses are not politically correct or culturally high-toned as in Ivy League schools, but many of them are pragmatic, informative, useful in getting jobs.

And it won't be long before popular professors catch on to the idea that they can sell their talents on the internet as tutors or in teleconferencing to any who want brilliant and entertaining scholarship for a price.

It is not difficult to see that we are in a new educational age in which freedom of choice can predominate. Once the basic readin', writin', and ‘rithmatic are mastered after the sixth grade there is no reason to choose a lifetime course of education as decisive in one's future life employment. There are an uncountable number of educational programs, schools, courses, tutors, coaches in every subject available now, depending only on an individual's motivation and available capital.

The Republican Party should provide such a vision of freedom of choice in our educational lives by supporting incentives for educational advancement at any age. It might be considered a capital investment like investing in a home. We should inspire and encourage educational advancement and expansion. There is no reason to be stuck on one career path one's whole life because of inflexible school structures.

This brings us to the second component in the new Republican vision, after lifelong freedom of choice in education--freedom of choice in vocation. One's first career choice is often a mistake, based more on family influence and ignorance than experience and personal motivation. And often a second or third career can be the source of gratification and innovation. Career change can be encouraged by a freer and more flexible educational system.

In addition, we need a more forward-leaning system of incentives for the creation of entrepreneurs and small businesses. Today and for the last century, the first-world country of America has been dominated by big business and big businessmen. The men in their gray flannel suits and their corporate perks caught the imaginations of our business school students and bigger was always better. With Generation X and even more with the unemployed Generation Y things have begun to change.

There was a time in America when all of its workers were small businessmen: shopkeepers, farmers, cattle growers, gold miners, printers, tool makers. Even the mill owners of New England were small businessmen who employed no more than twenty or thirty folks at a time. And perhaps the time has come to recapture that spirit of individualism and innovative productivity--not for the rich and well connected, but for the middle classes.

Besides freedom to choose our educational fate, the young generations need freedom to choose their occupational destiny as well. And this should become one of the key planks in the Republican Party platform. The party should be a party of innovation--not a party of jobs but of creators of jobs.

The Republicans should focus not on the children at the lower end of the system; the nation has already spent hundreds of billions of dollars in the last forty years on schemes to bring them forward. Our colleagues on the left may be better at that social objective than we are. We should focus instead on making America the leader of the world in science and technology either by growing our own crop or importing them from other countries. We want our work force not to be wage-earners who pay union dues and worry about their retirement, but technicians, artisans, skilled craftsmen who are proud of their creativity--entrepreneurs.

With the fulfillment of this goal the nation and the Party can bring meaningful ambitions into the destinies of our young people, transforming what was formerly a ticket to decrepitude into an innovative and interesting mature life. Work need not be a Dickensian oppressive vision but a life-enhancing creative generative experience.

So if you are over your self pity and chagrin, here's how the Republican Party can win the country back in 2024 and in the meantime keep it from getting much worse:

1. Recruit the right person to run in 2024 and keep grooming him or her until then. Meanwhile, organize ways of winning an election the way Obama did or better.

2. Minimize the eye-glazing economic abstractions as major campaign issues.

3. Containment. Keep the Democrats from expanding. Concentrate on winning and keeping both Houses.

4. Above all, articulate a new political vision that will capture the imagination of the young and ambitious of every background.

Let's start now.

Game Called on Account of Darkness

Note to Holger Awakens Readers:

This will be my last post on the 2012 Presidential and Congressional elections.  I can't express the rammifications of this any better than Daniel Greenfield.  Tomorrow we move forward at this blog in waging the war against Islam - the enemies are many, the days are short.

This comes from Family Security Matters.

Game Called on Account of Darkness


A week ago we sat waiting out the storm when the lights flickered and went out. One moment we were sitting in a lit room, the television flashing picture and sound, the internet feeding news, and then we were in the dark.

At first we expected the lights to come on at any minute. Any hour. Any day. And then living without water or power, day after day, it seemed as if the light would never come back.

And then, unexpectedly, after almost a week, they did.

The lights have gone out in America now. They may come back. They may not. It's up to us. No one is going to come help us do it. Other countries have America. We have ourselves.

Readers will notice that this site did not predict any Romney landslides. It did not engage in empty cheers or promise that he would win half the country and restore moral leadership. That's not what this site is about. This site is about the hard truths and now as we sit in the dark, let's pass out some of those around the room.

We can blame Chris Christie, Sandy or Romney's last debate performance. But let's look at the actual election.

Romney outlasted the primaries because he was the most electable. Two blue state politicians, as bland and inoffensive as possible, ran on the economy, not on war or social issues, and managed to convince many Democrats that they could fix the economy. He got a white turnout to match that of Ronald Reagan and crowded rallies. And none of it was enough.

Romney had an excellent machine. But Obama had the bigger machine that was more than a collection of SuperPACs. It was the urban political machine, with its suburban tentacles, fed by taxpayer money and integrated into every budget. The time when it could be beaten the old way may be passing.

The people who came out to worship Obama stayed home. Romney's rallies drew big crowds. But when all was said and done, the lines of people who feed off the political machine were there, and the handlers of the machine cast their multiple votes and carried off their manifold frauds because their own private economy depended on it.

Every time people ask me why the left has such a grip on this country, my answer is because they worked for it. It's the answer that most people don't want to hear, but it's true. The left has been planning this for a while. They have been playing the long game, building the infrastructure and indoctrinating generations. And to beat them, we will have to do the same thing.

The right is 40 years behind the left and it remains a disorganized collection of potentials seeking a compass point. The "right" that got behind Mitt Romney consists of millionaires who want fewer regulations and easier imports from China, of social conservatives who are mainly ignored, except when voter turnout becomes an issue, libertarians who want more freedoms, and the non-ideological small business middle class and the struggling working class sensing their country and way of life slipping away from them.

Those groups could be welded together into a movement every bit as tribal and protective of its interests, capable of engaging in collective action on behalf of its own interests, as the urban machine vote. And that may already be happening with the Tea Party. But the counter-revolution of the bourgeoisie isn't here yet. And there's plenty of work to do to make it a reality.

The Republican establishment had its shot, twice. It put up moderate non-objectionable candidates. And it lost. It has no policies, beyond keeping the system going, and it has no ideas and no agenda, besides winning. It is a decadent political class fused with an even more decadent pundit class that views elections like these as a game, not as a life-and-death matter. It makes up lies and tells them to its base and hopes that the base will then forgive and forget being lied to and used one more time.

It's not done, by any stretch of the imagination. Right now, Christie is patting himself on the back and drawing up a list of advisers for a 2016 run. And a dozen equally loathsome personalities are doing the same thing. And they may even get their way. But that doesn't really matter. This is a long game and to win it, we have to think long term.

Moderation does not win elections. If you think it does, go look at the smirking face of Barack Obama. And then imagine him running for office back when Bill Ayers was building bombs. America's new rulers were once considered far more extreme and unpopular than the Tea Party. Embracing radical and unpopular ideas is not a losing strategy. It is a short term losing strategy and a long term winning strategy so long as your ideas can be used to build a movement capable of turning those ideas into an organizing force.

The question is whether a right-wing movement can emerge that will make the vast majority of small businessmen in this country feel as negatively about a Democratic president as welfare voters feel about a Republican president?

This election has come close to testing that proposition. The time has come to test it further. The left went after gun owners, the way that it went after business owners, and the NRA used its hostility to build a powerful coalition of gun owners who broke the will of the elected left and made them turn on easier prey.

The key is organization. The left built its machines by convincing entire groups that they had a binding interest in a reflexive opposition to Republicans under a Democratic umbrella. Consolidating an opposition based on the same principles, that same sense that its financial oxygen will be cut if the Democrats win, is doable. But it cannot begin and end with the financials.

This is a cultural war and living in denial of that is senseless. Those social issues? They belong on the table. Because the alternative is that the table will belong to the left and we will be stuck arguing the level of regulation that is appropriate in a society whose entire moral imperative is based on the values of regulation.

Most people, left and right, want a society based on values. Opting out of the values debate means that we lose by default. Yes some of that is unpopular. It will make some elections unwinnable. Much like supporting gay marriage twenty years ago. The left kept going and it won because that is how the game is played.

These are all building blocks, but they are still scattered pieces. The right I am describing is based on the left. It is the mirror image, a counter-revolutionary pushback against the left's intrusions into the lives, values and work of its people. And that isn't enough. A counter-revolution that is reactive will fail. It is why the Romney campaign was doomed from the start. It is why the Tea Party isn't enough. It's not enough to be against things. It's not enough to be for things because they are the opposite of the things that the people you are at war with are for.

A movement needs a deeper sense of passion. It must be fueled by a certainty that it holds the answer to the problems of its society and its civilization. It must believe that its existence would be necessary even if the left did not exist. And it must be willing to do anything to win.

This is not a mere battle of elections. The left occupied and won other fields long before it had a shot at doing anything like taking power. It is first of all a battle of ideas. And it is a battle of structures. And that means a conservative cultural war will be necessary and conservative structures must be built within the system. Rather than making arguments, we must create facts on the ground.

That's a tall order and we are way behind. And tactics like these are not very palatable to many of us, because they resemble what the left does. They would rather expect people to naturally do the right thing. And that's nice. I would very much like people to do the right thing. I would like to stop by one of those long lines that I saw today at the polls, almost as long as the one for free government stuff, and show them a graph of the national debt and the debt that their children will owe. I would like to think that it would change their minds. But I know better... and so do you.

The left got this far by having a plan. We will either find a plan or we will be gone. America will go the way of Latin America, with gated communities, conservative oligarchs, violent ghettos and red politicians screaming about power to the people. There will be no law, just men with guns and newspapers, and generals in convenient positions, and suitcases full of cocaine in the right hands. If you like this system, it's probably only a generation away. Given enough immigration from south of the border-- maybe less. And then California turns into Brazil and America turns into California.

We can stop this, but we won't do it without building a movement that can stand up to the left, without assembling machines that will bring together many of the same people who voted for Obama, and we won't do it if we are too afraid of the consequences of fighting a culture war with the left to get started.

It is dark now. On my side of the coast, the time approaches 1 AM. The dark end of one day and the beginning of a new day. It all depends on how you look at things.

Revolutions are not born out of success, they are born out of despair. They rise out of the dark hours of the night. They come from the understanding that all the other options are running out. Sometimes you have to fall down to rise and sometimes you have to hit bottom, to gather one last breath and fight to reach the top.

This is still a wonderful country. It is the finest place that this civilization has produced. Despite the events of the last day, it is worth fighting for.

Obama's "Organizing For America" Given Access To Voter Registration Drive At Florida Schools, GOP Forbidden

Ah yes, the schools....the PUBLIC schools....the spawning grounds for the next decades Marxist socialists never fails to push the envelope for abusing the public trust as a group from Obama's "Organizing for America" were allowed into half a dozen Florida schools to register students to vote for Obama but access to Republicans was denied.  And now the Florida school folks are saying they were illegally duped by the Obamaites.

Duped?  Oh sure.  The Obama agenda IS the public school agenda.  After all it's all about Obama, right?  Oh oops....I meant....."it's all about the kids!"

The story comes from Family Security Matters.

School Lets Dems Register Students to Vote, But Not GOP

Florida Republicans are outraged after a school district allowed a pro-Obama organization to conduct student voter registration drives and deliver speeches to classes - but denied the Romney campaign similar opportunities.

Pasco County Schools confirmed to Fox News that volunteers from Organizing For America were given access to as many as a half dozen high school and middle school campuses.

"They did register students to vote," spokesman John Mann told Fox News. "We don't know how many children were registered - (but) we have an ongoing investigation."

According to email correspondence obtained by Fox News, volunteers tried to infiltrate at least three other school campuses - but on-campus officials rebuffed those efforts.

In addition to voter registration, a former teacher was allowed to deliver Obama speeches to a number of senior high school students.

"She got into six classrooms and gave pro-Obama speeches - like way off to the left," said James Mathieu, general counsel for the Pasco County Republican Party. "That got out to parents and parents complained."

Matthieu told Fox News he has filed a complained with the Florida Division of Elections and also contacted the Florida Attorney General's office.

"We have a liberal culture in our school system and we know that," he told Fox News. "The problem is someone has used false credentials, false pretenses and there is a security issue."

Mathieu said that some of the Organizing for America volunteers identified themselves to school officials as being with the local elections office.

"These people have used false pretense to get into the high schools and all they're giving us is whitewash and lip service," he said.

But Mann told Fox News that to his knowledge none of the volunteers misrepresented themselves.

"They identified themselves as being with Organizing For America," he said.

However, according to an email obtained by Fox News - school officials acknowledged there may have been some deceit.

"In at least one case, those individuals said they were from the Pasco Supervisor of Elections Office," wrote staff member Paula Lesko. "Unfortunately the SOE said that is not the case."

So why did school officials allow a partisan organization to mingle with students?

“That will come out in our final investigation,” Mann said.

Another significant issue was the former teacher’s pro-Obama address. Local Republicans asked for equal access. At first, school officials agreed – but later reversed their decision.


“There was definitely discussion of having a Republican come in for equal access,” Mann told Fox News. “We’re not going in that direction because that would indeed be an additional violation of board policy.

Organizing For America apologized to the school district, the Tampa Bay Times reported. And the volunteer who delivered the pro-Obama speeches has been dismissed.

A similar incident occurred in Pinellas County when a high school principal invited students to volunteer for the Obama campaign.

Reuben Hepburn, the principal at Dunedin High School, made an announcement over the public address system about volunteer opportunities with the Obama campaign and Organizing for America, The Tampa Bay Times reported.

A school spokesperson said the incident came to light after a parent complained.

“The mistake there was that (Hepburn) promoted one specific organization that supports one specific candidate,” spokesperson Melanie Marquez told the newspaper. “It’s okay to say, ‘Hey, you can volunteer for political campaigns.’ But it’s not a good idea to focus on one organization.”

Is Obama's October Surprise a Military Attack On Iran or Syria?

The article is from Family Security Matters.

Can You Guess the October Surprise?


One should never underestimate the audacity of President Obama to do anything to hold onto his presidency. It is safe to assume that, should his currently close but favorable poll numbers drop significantly, he has some critical "October Surprise" hidden away in his back pocket. Election fraud aside, some postulate that some form of pre-election adoption of (or, at least, nod to) some or all of the Simpson-Bowles Commission recommendations remains available. These same believers question why Romney does not do something similar as well.

More likely, however, the October (or September) maneuver will lie abroad; foreign policy is the natural playground for an incumbent commander in chief to manipulate. International crises tend to bring our nation together in support of the president while making it difficult for a challenger such as Mitt Romney to attack. After all, we can't change leaders in the middle of a crisis. Furthermore, while the choice of Paul Ryan as candidate for Vice-President doubles up on fiscal issue strength, it adds little toward foreign policy expertise. Obama will likely press the issue to both distract from the economy while stressing the advantage of being in the White House. And just as Romney was careful to not criticize Obama when he traveled on foreign soil, he will be pressured from many fronts to quell campaign attacks should the country find itself in some form of actual battle.

While Obama rode the wave of anti-pre-emptive war fervor in 2008, the most critical last minute ploy, however, may be to stage some aggressive use of force against either Iran or Syria in order to further what has been a successful theme of "Obama as warrior." The Obama campaign has been able to sell the narrative that Obama is "gutsy" and uninhibited when it comes to national security interests. The killing of Bin Laden, originally staged to occur and be announced immediately preceding a media packed White House Correspondent's Dinner, was sold to the public as an "agonizing" decision by a uniquely gifted executive. One need only ask how the supposed "spontaneous" flash mobs of college kids that so quickly assembled to celebrate obtained that many American flags to see the fine hand of a David Axelrod storyline being sold to America.

The premise pedaled was that if he launched the operation and it failed he would risk tremendous political backlash ala Jimmy Carter's desert debacle in Iran. In reality, he faced greater political fallout if he failed to act ala Bill Clinton who decided not to pull the trigger during the Lewinsky affair. Nonetheless, with the media in his pocket and swooning surrogates, Obama's campaign was able to turn a "no brainer" into the signature courageous act of the new century.

The use of drones, the continuation of Guantanamo facilities, and the continuation of the Afghanistan war have also all been postured as acts of a concerned president even when they conflict with the core principles of his base. And by craftily narrowing the definition of our enemy to al Qaeda alone, Obama's handlers have even made the case that he has already effectively won the war so that a post election withdrawal no longer appears the sign of weakness it once did. Nor is timing allowed to interfere with Obama's political agenda. Significantly, it has been alleged that the 2010 "printer bomb" announcement was delayed and timed for maximum effect in the interim elections.

Years ago on Saturday Night Live, Bill Murray announced a brilliant strategy for fighting the Soviets - send in an all-girl army. If we win, Murray argued, terrific. And if we lose, we say "So you beat a bunch of girls." Similar stagecraft has taken place with Obama's Iran policy. Perhaps the greatest act of misdirection has been to sell for years the notion that Obama simply wishes to get by the election without any confrontation of force between Iran and Israel and/or America. If he can pull off re-election without any use of force, that may be ideal. His actions, however, show a cool regard for the value of the image of the "gutsy" president. If he needs to demonstrate forcefulness, what better time than right before the election?

It was clear years ago that Obama's policy of "engagement" had no urgency attached to it. He gave an Iranian regime, which could not have been more clear that it had no interest in ever giving up its nuclear drive, plenty of time to demonstrate its interest in pursuing engagement. Rather, the regime immediately shut him down. Then, curiously, Obama stalled the next three years before implementing "sanctions." Long the talk around the world, full commencement of sanctions was delayed until this July. Plenty of explanations can be offered but none makes any sense to one who is seriously concerned about the dangers each day of Iranian advancement poses. Rather, the entire regimen appears back dated from a pre-election point of maximum effectiveness.

Obama's treatment of Israel is fully congruent as well. Sell the notion that you prefer Israel do nothing, at least before the election, and keep Israel unable to act alone without your approval. If you survive re-election, terrific. Then you can run your Iran policy precisely the way you wish- perhaps allow Iran to get the bomb and talk about containment (or its absence), or force Israel into necessary action and then, in exchange for helping Israel, extract all the concessions you wish to foist a pro-Muslim Brotherhood, pro-Palestinian "peace process" upon it. Alternatively, if you need the show of strength for November votes, engage in some pre-emptive act that will necessarily fall short of solving the Iranian problem but will give Axelrod enough to work the "reluctant warrior" image. One can almost already hear senior advisor Valerie Jarrett bleating, "The President was willing to risk his presidency in order to ensure American security..."

Iran is not the only stage on which Obama can pull off the pre-emptive display. Syria could function as well. Obama has curiously suppressed US action in Syria until such time as the Muslim Brotherhood forces have had time to gain momentum under the guidance of Obama's adviser and political director of the Syrian National Council. While quick to infuse himself into the Egyptian and Libyan conflicts, if even behind NATO cover, Obama has curiously delayed turning up the heat in Syria until it is most advantageous electorally to him.

As the election moves closer and Obama's poll numbers fail to pick up, we are likely to see the stage enabled so that the critical decision can be made: not whether to actually secure US interests but whether some elaborate pre-emptive display of force is necessary to pull through November. After all, while Obama is anything but "gutsy," he is certainly electorally savvy. All that is left is the intrigue: what will the surprise be?

Why Is It So Hard For So Many To Criticize Barack Obama? White Guilt.

From Family Security Matters.

How White Guilt Cripples Assessment of First Black President


America was very proud of itself in November 2008 when it elected its first black (or at least half-black) president, Barack Obama. Liberal media outlets (excuse the redundancy) framed this event as one of our greatest national cathartic exercises of democracy. They worked directly with Obama and his media manipulators to elevate his presidency to Messianic proportions while they displayed an endless parade of people entranced in ecstasy over this supposedly magnanimous accomplishment.

Magnanimous it was. Here was a man who, with virtually no experience relevant to the world's most important job, walked right in with global support. Here was a man with an endless sequence of non-specific promises read from a teleprompter able to sell himself to a public interested primarily in getting rid of what it had been led to believe was evil and responsible for all the ills of life: President Bush. Here was a man whose background (at least as much as he would permit to be disclosed, discovered, or discussed) gave every indication that he would deeply uproot much of what most Americans hold dear - freedom, responsibility, capitalism, accountability, transparency, limited control over individual lives, and so forth.

And here is a man who, as President, is being considered by rapidly growing numbers of Americans to be a dangerous disaster. And his failures present a troubling dilemma for much of the public: We worked so hard to get on this train and congratulated ourselves so profusely for climbing aboard. How do we get off?

The reasons people voted for Obama are as varied as the ways he is now failing. Nonetheless, for many whites, the relief of "white guilt" was a significant contributing factor. As former black militant Shelby Steele has brilliantly articulated in various books and articles, white guilt is the behavior of whites that attempts to regain a sense of moral authority presumed forfeited in an age of "white supremacy." It is the behavior (not the emotion) whites utilize to attempt to relieve themselves of the stigma of racism.

Blacks, he maintains, have generally learned two ways to negotiate power from whites using white guilt. Some ("bargainers") offer a deal in which they promise not to rub the country's racial past in the face of whites in exchange for power. Others ("challengers") tend to throw white racial history in the face of whites to extract their share of power. In A Bound Man, Steele claimed that Obama, as a classic bargainer, stood no chance of winning the presidency because the bargainer is required to mask his true nature in order to seal the deal. Steele guessed that the ordeal of the election process would not allow Obama to maintain his mask. Obviously, Steele seems to have guessed wrong.

Obama has described how he learned to navigate in a world of whites. Essentially, he discovered that by acting unthreatening and non-angry, his aura of intelligence would bring whites to him. Perhaps his history was one where he learned early that as long as he played the part he could essentially allow white guilt to propel whites to aggrandize him and comply with his wishes. This is the experience of one to whom few have ever said "no." And that same expectation of white cooperation has led and followed him both to and within the White House

Yet, not so fast. While Steele may have underestimated Obama's supreme skill in masking himself during the election, Obama now seems to have met his match in executing the actual office. Much of what Steele predicted in terms of not being able to fool enough of the people is starting to prove correct. For many (not the hardcore devotees - yet), the reckless spending, lack of international leadership, absence of transparency, disregard for climbing national debt, freezing out of cabinet members and others in favor of handpicked yet unelected and unaccountable "czars," seizure of control of various businesses, appearance of having either no plans or the most naïve of plans on crucial foreign policy issues, improper manipulation of public understanding of the financial crisis, destroying healthcare under the guise of saving it, incoherent energy policy, global warming measures the rest of the world will not undertake, never-ending taxes and taking direct control of the Census are just a few of the clues that the Obama they thought they were electing was not the Obama they put into office. For many, his history, including his relationships with Reverend Wright, William Ayers, Rashid Khalidi and others, his training in Saul Alinsky's radical community organizing, his record as the most liberal Senator, his curious and difficult to independently verify past were merely insignificant nuances - not the red alert signs they would constitute with virtually any other candidate. The bargainer mask is quickly dissolving.

After nearly four years of Obama as President, many have become palpably concerned, if not terrified, by the nation's choice of president. And that terror gives rise to a fascinating dilemma: how does America, if free to so choose, extricate itself from what it has done - as magnificent an accomplishment as we like to think it was?

Some argue that the polls indicate that while many may be beginning to disagree with some of Obama's policies, they still regard him personally in high esteem. Liberal pundits use this to suggest that there is no buyer's remorse, only a temporary process of working out the kinks in some courageous policies during some difficult and unchartered times.

Yet something deeper, perhaps, is developing. For those who invested great emotional energy in the "hope" of Obama, waking up to the "reality" of Obama is a painful task. As cognitive dissonance theory would inquire: how does one hold the image of the great savior in the face of the great disaster? How does one explain the exuberance experienced in saying goodbye to everything Bush and Cheney and otherwise "evil" while simultaneously realizing the country is now truly in far more dangerous hands? The fears the left wing media pushed into the minds of the public during the Bush years - that our allies dislike us, that Bush is controlling our lives, that Bush is to blame for Muslim anti-Americanism and jihadism, that the economy was headed in the wrong direction and so forth - look meager when compared to the real dangers that the left wing media now desperately struggles to hide from the public.

Cognitive dissonance would suggest that those disappointed Obama voters will struggle for quite some time to find some explanation as to why they like him and why he is still worthy of the presidency. Distinguishing Obama, as these polls do, from his policies is an understandable first step along these lines.

But what next? The problem with guilt, white or otherwise, is it affords no guidance itself on when enough is enough. Guilt is a tactic in a game made to last. One version has kept the Israelis and Palestinians perpetually locked in dance around the "peace process;" an elaborately disguised vehicle of continual extortion. Anywhere else, the trading of "peace" (or the cessation of violence) for an asset is called extortion and is punishable. Here, under the guise of a morally favorable movement towards the unobjectionable goal of "peace," it is labeled the "peace process." Holding together the entire structure of Palestinian "victimization" is the endless force of "guilt." And as soon as some truly final resolution appears possible, the guilt game dictates a retreat to square one. As long as guilt is the glue, true resolution defeats the purpose. The game must go on.

Guilt is the result of the accusation "you made me this way." The game of guilt requires the never-ending charge "you made me suffer." The game supports not just careers, such as those of challengers such as Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Yasser Arafat, Mahmoud Abbas and "scholars" who pervade university campuses in minority and Middle East studies departments. The game is also the foundation of many political movements and parties. Without a villain responsible for all ills and, from whom to extract recompense, many movements would be forced to fold.

White guilt continues to flourish and to propel much of our politics. Democrats stamped out President Bush's attempts to appoint an Hispanic nominee to the Supreme Court, Miguel Estrada, in a fashion that could never be utilized against Obama's choice of Sonia Sotomayor. Identity politics and reverse discrimination are simply by-products and tools of the guilt game. Some of Obama's campaign rhetoric referenced the notion of securing "reparations" for racial injustices of the past while his "tax the rich" and class warfare are further extensions of the guilt game. The fact that Sotomayor can finagle acceptance of her actions in the Ricci case is testimony to just how deeply installed is white guilt in the public's consciousness. Senator Barbara Boxer's recent racist episode in demeaning Black Chamber of Commerce leader Harry Alford demonstrated the ridiculous extremes to which some will allow white guilt to take them. Obama, himself, easily includes reference to black responsibility in his speeches. His policies, however, are steeped in manipulating white guilt.

The structure of the use of white guilt, as Steele describes, is to force whites constantly to prove the proposition "I am not a racist." And this is why the game is programmed never to end as one can never prove a negative, much less for all time. This is precisely what pushed Boxer into the foolish statements she made to Alford as she feebly attempted to demonstrate that she was not a racist. This is what Henry Louis Gates Jr. attempted to provoke from the Cambridge police sergeant James Crowley - to flip the story from a suspected burglary to the "racist" officer. And white guilt was attempting to elicit from Crowley an apology (hoping he would beg that he not be stigmatized as a racist) which he quite boldly resisted. And it is such a deep familiarity with white guilt that led Obama during a nationally televised press conference to declare that the police department acted "stupidly" without knowing any of the facts. While he initially tried to suggest and amplify this as an issue of racial profiling against blacks, in fact, by speaking without facts, it was Obama himself who engaged in a bitterly offensive racial profiling of and against white policemen. And it was Obama who, unable to rid himself of the narrative of white guilt, was also unable to deliver a full and direct apology for his words; opting instead (as did his partner in white guilt manipulation, Sonia Sotomayor) to cowardly obfuscate the issue with "regret" about the "impression" he gave. And it was Obama who continues to reinforce old familiar white guilt adages by infusing "race is still a troubling aspect of our society" into a situation which, for the police, had absolutely nothing to do with race. Far from change, Obama, unmasked, made it quite clear that his years around Wright, Alinsky, and others predictably made him exactly who he continues to be.

And insulating Obama from serious reflection on these matters is another consequence of the guilt game. While President Bush was castigated for a $350 billion stimulus package (recall that he turned over the second $350 billion to Obama), white guilt has kept the country virtually spellbound as Obama more than quadruples the damage. Bush was destroyed for getting us into Iraq and not having a plan to get us out all at the cost of American lives and treasure. Obama is on a similar path in Afghanistan and the liberal media does little more than an occasional CYA story to protect itself for the future. No credible president of the past could have ever sold the notion of partially measuring the economy on the basis of the immeasurable phantasm of "jobs saved." Such an insult to the intelligence of the American people is simply washed over by the media. Simply put, white guilt continues to be a major factor in protecting Obama.

While we, as a nation, have become comfortable in celebrating the great successes of black men, we have not yet learned how to fully integrate the failures of great black men. It was easy to relish the accomplishments of O.J. Simpson in his heyday; his fall brought tremendous racial strife to the nation. When a black congressman, William Jefferson, was found to have almost one hundred thousand dollars of cash in his freezer, he was given every benefit of the doubt as to his culpability. Congressman Charlie Rangel has an almost unfathomable number of ethics investigations endlessly languishing under Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Many a white man in public service has been thrown out at the barest hint of criminal behavior. Obviously, political party makes a difference as does consistency between one's acts and political promises. Nonetheless, in a nation which continues to be uneasy with the failure of blacks and unclear as to how to address their fall, Obama is still afforded significant insulation geared to protect him from all that would normally beset a man in his position.

The simple but immensely difficult and painful question America needs to answer is: When has white guilt run its course such that we can truly act in a "post-racial" world and address this presidency appropriately? Put otherwise, we cannot be "post-racial" until we are ready to be "post-guilt."

As Steele points out, discrimination as a legal matter was eliminated decades ago. That does not mean that discrimination does not rear its ugly head any more than the fact that criminal theft or burglary statutes have not fully protected private property. Nonetheless, just as we do (at least for the time being) live in a country built on private property, we also live in one intended to be based upon equality. A "post-racial" world is not one in which no one recognizes the fact that others are of differing backgrounds. Nor can it ever become the utopia where no private judgments of others based on skin color occur (any more than people constantly judge others based on a wide set of often trivial criteria). Rather, a "post-racial" world is one where any such judgments are rendered virtually meaningless and of minimal consequence. It is one in which individuals affirmatively choose not to inject race into the ordinary difficulties of life. It is one in which the solution is not to invite more "conversation" but to refuse in the first place to charge "racism" and to demand whites prove they are not racist where race is irrelevant to the situation. It is one in which the game of white guilt has finally ended.

We are certainly not there yet. White guilt is all around. "Scholars" and professors like Gates and other challengers still banter on about the world of white supremacy while bargainers continue to promise whites protection from the memories of America's racist past; each of which takes focus off of the present. It is alive within Congress as well. Instead of addressing residual byproducts of past inequality of opportunity, white guilt and Obama pressure Congress to overhaul (some say destroy) our entire healthcare system- likely penalizing hundreds of millions to appear to assist perhaps tens of millions. And ACORN, Obama's community organizing troops set to be funded with billions of stimulus funds, has mastered the manipulation of white guilt in all of its activities. Obama has plenty of "teachable moments" left of which to take advantage. Perhaps he should teach by example; rewarding those who forego white guilt while coming down hard on those who manipulate it. Unfortunately, Obama's essence is so intimately entwined with white guilt maneuverings that our best lessons will likely arrive only upon his departure from office.

Needless to say, over the past decades, the country has made major advances in diminishing the severe racism that used to plague it. More can and will be done. Nonetheless, if Obama were white, there is little doubt that the public discourse would have already included terms such as impeachment, incompetence, criminal recklessness, fraud, liar, con-man, anti-American and so forth. And if anyone named Bush performed a small fraction of the acts Obama has to date, he would no longer be in office.

America must struggle to figure out how it can rid itself of its first black president who is destroying the foundations upon which the country was built. When it can do so without guilt and without challenge, it will have truly earned the glory it thought it achieved in electing Obama. Perhaps one of the many great things about America's electing Obama is that, finally, America, to rid itself of Obama, will be forced to stand up and rid itself once and for all of white guilt and rid its politics of the game of guilt itself.

Is the White House Masterminding a Race War In America?

Read this. Whether you believe this account or not, read it. And after you are done reading it, tell me you don't believe it. It's long. Read it all.

The story is from the posting at Pat Dollard (article attributed to BeforeItsNews).

The Notorious Ulsterman: White House Masterminding Race War



“The president doesn’t like the Oval Office much – he’s made that point repeatedly to more than a few at the White House. He prefers to be upstairs, no suit. No shoes. No joke —”

Obama is moving ahead with the plans to bring about Martial Law. In this interview a Whitehouse insider reveals some very disturbing information.

Author’s Note: This interview is the first face to face sit down in months with our longtime D.C. political operative we have come to simply call “Insider”. They offer up a unique perspective and insight based upon their decades-long experience as a D.C. insider working within the highest levels of government– including helping to elect Barack Obama in 2008. Here now are the words of Insider, unedited and published in their entirety per their request. This is part three of the interview. WARNING: Adult Content

________

Insider: (Pauses)… As far as it takes. We’re preparing for it. I sure as hell hope America is too. Like I told you…this election coming up…Brutal.

Ulsterman: What do you mean by we – we are preparing for it? And are you actually saying that Barack Obama would push for race riots to somehow win a presidential election? That sounds…far fetched. Even for this administration.
Insider: Does it? How so? You need to take step back and see more of what has been happening in this country. It’s why this thing went from a concern about the party to a serious concern about the country. Why aren’t you seeing that?

Ulsterman: Just explain – the race rioting. I don’t see how that would help Obama get re-elected. It doesn’t…I just don’t see how that would work. In fact it seems like just the opposite. If we go from economic chaos to…whatever one would call it – racial chaos…that doesn’t help Obama. So yeah – I don’t see what you are saying there.

Insider: (Leans back – folds arms across chest)

You and too many goddamn Americans don’t see it, so don’t feel so bad. You know, other world leaders see it. Putin. Sarkozy. Merkel. Harper…Barack Obama is incapable of anything remotely resembling leadership, but he is also quite capable of the kind of dangerous arrogance that the very worst leaders in history possessed. (Pauses) Look, let me try and paint a picture for you – a clearer picture of what Obama really is. If you were to step into the White House and see the man at work, or whatever the hell it is he calls it. It’s not the same as what some of his own people are calling it – I know that for certain. The jokes, the sneers that go on behind the president’s back. You want to see that picture? The real Barack Obama? Maybe then you might understand what the man is capable of – really capable of.

Ulsterman: Go ahead.

Insider: I’m at my desk here right? We’re sitting here having this conversation. How about we take a look at what the president would look like in the same situation? Walk into that room – that office of his on the 2nd floor. He spends less and less time downstairs – that’s Daley’s world now. The president doesn’t like the Oval Office much – he’s made that point repeatedly to more than a few at the White House. He prefers to be upstairs, no suit. No shoes. No joke —

Ulsterman: (Interrupts) —Shoes?

Insider: Yeah – shoes. President Obama, when he is in his de facto office upstairs – the one that is closer to Jarrett’s own office, and a short hop over to the residence, he spends his time there often in shorts, or sweats, a t-shirt, and those sandal things…flip-flops. There is a large screen television in there and that’s where hours of his time are spent when he is actually at the White House. Day in and day out. The First Lady rules the residence, and the president heads over to his 2nd floor West Wing study. Starting around last spring, he started to take regular briefings in there. And the instructions that went out on those briefings to the president were that they were to be most importantly – brief. Anything more than about 15 minutes is unacceptable to Obama. So let’s look through the eyes of someone heading into Barack Obama’s upstairs office at the White House to give him a briefing. Maybe it’s on national security. Maybe the economy. Energy policy. Whatever – doesn’t matter. The scenario being played out these days is pretty much the same regardless of the particulars. You knock on the door – it’s always closed. Always. Often you have to knock for some time before being given approval from inside to enter. The big screen will be on – the volume loud. You can easily hear it from outside the door. The sports channels are the ones most commonly playing, though sometimes the channel will be set to music, or Fox News. Sometimes Valerie Jarrett might be there, but most often it is just the president and his personal aide. A large leather chair will be facing the television – it’s well worn. Not part of the White House furnishings but something the president must have brought in from back home. That’s where you’ll most often find the President of the United States – the most powerful man in the free fucking world. He often sits with one leg draped over one of the chair’s arms and the other leg stuck straight onto the floor. Shorts, sweats, a t-shirt, and like I said, no shoes or just those sandal things that so many of the younger people like to wear these days. And that leg that’s draped over an arm of the chair will be bopping up and down, like…like someone with a lot of nervous energy. Like a kid does. And there’s the smell of smoke hanging on the president. The guy never quit smoking – that was all bullshit. I told you that already. In fact, there’s one of those smokeless ash trays on the desk in there. And that desk, it’s a mess. Magazines spread out all over it. Stupid shit too. Real low brow reading material the president is into. People. Rolling Stone. Lots of those tabloid things. The most common thread with this shit is it’s about the president. If it’s about him, he’s gonna read it. Good or bad – doesn’t matter. If somebody is talking about him, he’s reading it. He’s watching it. Whatever. The guy’s self-obsession is off the fucking charts.

So that’s what you first see when you enter the room – the upstairs office of President Obama. Next you’re gonna notice how small the guy looks. Really thin. He pads his suits up you know. The top end. The shoulders. It became an actual issue during the 2008 campaign – some of his handlers were saying it made his neck look too small. Fact is, it made his neck look just like it is – small. The guy is scrawny. All knees and elbows sitting in that chair. Sometimes he gets up when you come in, sometimes he remains seated and will just turn the volume on the TV down with the remote and say, “What you got?” That foot is bouncing up and down while you give him the briefing, but he rarely looks over at you – always looking at whatever is on the television. If it’s Jarrett in the room, or the personal assistant, one of them is there to keep the time. Your time. Don’t go over that fifteen minutes. And even if the president doesn’t look like he hears a word you’re saying, they are listening to everything. Every goddamn syllable coming out of your mouth, and if something is said they don’t like, they jot down notes. Been told it’s to use for the end of day summary they give the president – their own version of what is important and what can be ignored…and who might need to be pushed down, or pushed out…or whatever. So you’re looking at the president, this skinny guy, who’s ignoring you, who’s dressed like some kind of fucking frat boy wannabe, with somebody else taking notes on what you’re saying, and then you get up and walk out. The president might acknowledge you on some days, give a little nod, maybe even a thank you, but most often he just continues to look at the TV, bounce that foot on the chair, his skin looking off-color, pale, the eyes out of focus, the hair a helleva lot more gray than is shown in public, the wrinkles around the mouth far deeper…and the hands. His fucking hands are so…they are just these thin little stick digits. They are like these long-fingered woman’s hands. And his wrists, you could wrap your own fingers all the way around those wrists – again, so much like a woman’s hands. Almost freakish. Certainly not the strong alpha-male type image that America was given during the 2008 campaign.

That’s who you see in the room – the real Barack Obama. Pretty fucking unsettling. Those world leaders, they sensed this. They saw through the façade and saw who was running the United States of America, and the word went out – “Don’t count on this American president – he doesn’t have a fucking clue.” And they’re right.

Ulsterman: So what? The president is a thin man. He has small hands. What the hell does that have to do with-with…anything? Or anything relevant to the 2012 election, or the scandal, or to—

Insider: (Interrupts)—I’m trying to lay out the psychological foundation of the son-of-a-bitch. You think people might want to know what this man is really like? How everything around him – the whole fucking image…it’s a charade. It’s a lie. He fooled me – he fooled a whole lot of us. And he is frightened every hour of every day that the country will find out. But this realization, this little part of Obama’s self-awareness, it’s getting beat down by the guy’s absolute arrogance and when necessary, willingness to over-reach acceptable executive authority. Yeah, it’s a lot more important than the fact he dresses like a slob when the cameras aren’t on, or that he lies over and over again just because it’s convenient and the media continues to let him get away with it…it’s about how far he will go to keep the charade up, right? How far, and who is he willing to throw under that bus? Who can be sacrificed to keep up the lie that is Barack Obama? To keep the scandals down? To keep people quiet? To keep himself as the tool for the ones really calling the shots?

So will he stir up the race issue if it means guilting or scaring white voters to keep him in the White House? Hell yes he will. He’s been doing that shit his whole damn life! You wanna say so what to that? You wanna see this country torn apart by race because we have a president who sees it as a viable political tool? Don’t answer – let me talk here. I’m laying some things out I’ve been holding back on, so if you wanna hear it, let me talk. Don’t interrupt me with one of your little questions…

The race card, the racial thing – whatever it’s gonna be called, it is the number one asset this administration believes it has to win in 2012. Their own polling data has shown that to be true over and over again. But how far are they willing to push that? Race. The charges of racism? I believe all the way if they have to. And they are gonna get people stirred up. And if Barack Obama doesn’t win re-election, watch them stand back while the riots break out, and watch them mouth the words “Burn baby burn.” I don’t think they are willing to go that far, I know it. If they can’t have America, nobody will. That’s how big – that’s how important this election coming up is. Even the people who pay attention to this stuff…they don’t realize how big this is. How important to the country. We are truly at a fork in the road here. This administration is going to attempt whatever necessary to remain in power. Race. Intimidation. Media attacks. Division – divide and fucking conquer. You notice how divisive the Republican primary campaigns have already started to become? You think that’s all occurring on its own? Hell no. Tens of millions of dollars are already being spent getting conservatives, Republicans, Independents, whatever – get them to attack each other. Get them frustrated and lower their desire to vote for the eventual nominee. You know, Republicans used to be the party that would unite behind the nominee when they were chosen – it frustrated the hell out of us Democrats who were always bitching over this or that right up until the election. That’s not the case anymore, and your Republicans are much weaker because of it. I’ll say this, if Republicans don’t get their shit together and vote for whoever is the nominee – and I mean WHOEVER is the nominee, then it will be another four years of Barack Obama running this country into the fucking dirt and that’s what we deserve. If we are too stupid as a country to fix this mess…then so be it. It’s over. The America we know, the America we knew – it’s over. Done. And we will only have ourselves to blame.

The Gloves Are Off?

(Hat Tip: SondraKistan)