WHO'S SORRY NOW?

Sorry? Not the president---unless you count his most recent statement on his attempt to smooth over his earlier, uh, mis-statement. or less than precise words on whether we could keep our insurance if we liked it.  Mr. Obama seems to have an aversion to meaningful apologizing---and can parse words like Clinton, only better. It was the president's second attempt to do damage control and give an apology without actually giving one. Instead, he said he was "sorry for those who found themselves" without insurance. We are too, Mr. President, we are too.  Because you see, those folks didn't just find themselves in medical jeopardy, you put them there. Worse, back in 2010, when you were selling Obamacare to the public, you assured us that things would remain the same, if we chose to stay with our previously chosen insurance and in control of our own medical decisions. There was no qualifying or equivocating on whether one's insurance policy met your standards. No, that would have given us pause, but it would have said it like it was---which could have eventually caused a revolt.  But that one sentence, which he so boldly and comfortingly uttered, over and over again, was the grand closer, the big kahuna, the final nail that put this life altering piece of legislation over the top without a whimper from most of the American people---we trusted his words. After all, he is the president. But it was, and let us not parse words here--- a con job, and a big fat lie. Because there are now thousands of people who have indeed lost their insurance due to the fact that it did not match up to the standards set by the new Affordable Care Act. There are meetings being held now to find a way to rectify this situation, but that isn't really the point---which is, we were suckered into a deal under false pretenses.

Not only was it a lie, it was deception, even fraud, at the highest level in terms of sneaking a law by the people which was radical, controversial, and counter intuitive enough to our gut instincts, that it was thought it best to not tell the whole truth---sugar coat it, leave out a few details, do whatever it takes, but get it done. If you doubt that, you are the ones Obama and team were and are counting on. It is a documented fact  now, that Obama and his advisors knew very well that the "you can keep your insurance" statement was not totally true, i.e. the sin of omission, and that they discussed the matter thoroughly, knowing that it could come back to bite them.  But it was decided to gamble on the magic allure of Obama, and  go with it anyway---it was the means to an end, which they felt justifiable, even if was obtained by misleading the very people it would most affect. It was breathtaking arrogance, audacity, and a miscalculation of the American public's gullibility---or was it? Can we forgive and forget? Or will the sting of this betrayal lose the extraordinary luster of a once adored president?

 The law is the law now, and we are left to deal not only with the debacle of signing up, which is a comedians' joke treasure trove, but the fact that the whole plan is not working out well at all.  The so called electronic "glitches" are in the hundreds, and experts have been called in to work a registration fix by November 30th, but even if they succeed, the signs of systemic failure are looming larger every day. Young people, the ones who must  buy insurance in huge numbers, in order to float the economic load of paying for all the heretofore, extra uninsured, are not showing up.  Premiums and deductibles are rising. Employers are cutting people and hours. Insurance companies are balking, and  doctors are declining in numbers. The theory of insurance for everyone, paid for by those who do not want or can afford it,  the young and the middle class---appears to be an idea whose time may have come, but whose implementation lacked depth, experience, and pragmatism--- and perhaps most importantly, an idea too foreign and dichotomous to the American mind set to fully grasp, let alone fly.  But the train has left the station--the fix is in, and we must deal with this gargantuan plan, one way or the other, or watch it fall apart in pieces---a train wreck of epic proportions. And the attempted repair or undoing of such a calamity may be worse than the actual cause.

What next?  Look for more presidential speeches to shore up the president's falling popularity, Democrats joining Republicans scrambling to delay and redesign the plan, in order to protect their election chances. And next, though not least, prepare for higher taxes. It has to come. No such thing as free lunches or Utopia. We are there ---change has come, as it was promised. Hope? Not much, unless you were hoping for a more socialistic, European, welfare state, call it what you will---it's ever closer. The Affordable Care Act was one big giant step forward to that end---the bigger one yet to come, and it's called "one payer system.  Say hello to Uncle Sam---he wants you. Not your military service, but you, your labor, your money, and your healthcare choices. Sam's current personification is Barack Obama,  and change is his game.  He believes devoutly in what he's doing, enough to sacrifice his own integrity, perhaps even his  legacy.  But no matter, he will continue to do whatever it takes. His ideology precedes even his honesty. Sorry? Not even close----the goal, is change, and hang the cost.

 Have you heard the quiet lately?  Is it the silence of surrender or the speechlessness of outrage?    Are we sorry now,  and are we watching a president and his signature law go down in flames, taking with it our healthcare and consequently an even more weakened economy? But what about those who are actually being helped by the new law? Well, yes, there are those, a precious few---just not enough of them to foot the bill, and that could be a medical and financial disaster for all of us. Who knows where it all goes next---but the rumors are flying---from an extended delay of the bill, to a complete repeal. It should not be forgotten that other alternative plans were offered by the opposing party, but never considered, much less studied. Will they now get a second chance? When pigs fly. That would be called co-operation, compromise, rising above differences for the public good. Much easier to refer to the Republicans as "the party of no". Sort of like the insurance mis-statement---not really true, but a means to an end.

Gossip has it that those rascally Republicans secretly wish for Obamacare to fail, and that's why it's happening---all those bad vibes are causing the glitches. Really? Excuse me while I laugh out loud , as if the Republicans had that much power. That's about as outrageous as the other theory making the rounds---that President Obama also wants his own law to fail, so that the insurance companies will disappear under the burden of enforced payouts, with not enough incoming new customers, resulting in the final solution. You got it-----a one payer system, with the United States government in total control of our healthcare needs. Incredulous? Excuse me while I shudder to think---

And this just in---Bill Clinton, lead spokesman and top parser of the Democrat party today said that Barack Obama should honor his promise of allowing people to keep their insurance if they like it.  Wow---is that the sound of Dems breaking rank? Maybe pigs do fly. Because other heretofore lip zipped, loyal Democrats are expressing grave concerns over the signs of pending doom for the  new healthcare law.  It is looking more and more like an idea which was conceived with good intentions, but borne out of political expediency---and may very well die a premature death, due to delivery complications, and causing considerable grief and turmoil.

We're all truly sorry---most of us like the idea of better healthcare for more people.  We don't even mind paying a little more for it---we just don't like being coerced into it, without balanced representation, and kept from reading the fine print. Good always catches up with bad.  Here's to our health, and happier, more honest days ahead.





   

GO BIG OR GO HOME!

"This is no damn game!", shouted a frustrated, outraged John Boehner, Speaker of the House. this past weekend, as we continued with a shut down government.  Boehner was reacting to President Obama's continued refusal to negotiate with the Republicans who have dared to draw their own red line in the sand regarding the funding of Obamacare. Reacting to Obama's refusal to even discuss spending cuts on our now 17 trillion dollar and growing budget, the Republicans played their last card---the defunding of Obama's signature bill, the Affordable Healthcare Act, unless and until the president agrees to talk, negotiate, hammer out ways to control the budget without continuously raising the debt ceiling. Seems reasonable, but Mr. Obama, doesn't see it that way--- as far as he is concerned, everything he is asking for is a "done deal", no further conversation required, period.  Perhaps in his mind, but the constitution does, indeed, allow for such dissent, argument, debate, and even defunding, especially by the House of Representatives, in this case, a Republican majority, who hold the purse strings of the United States Treasury and its people. To do otherwise, is to be irresponsible, irrelevant, and possibly an invitation to a third party.  They may as well go home---

How did this happen? And who's in charge here, to break the stalemate?  Apparently no one.  But shouldn't the prez be the deal broker, the peacemaker, the leader? But did you not hear him? He has no intention of bi-partisanship. Rather, he is annoyed and fed up with the very idea of a balanced government. He said he would not negotiate over the Affordable Care Act. Done deal, even though 60% of the people are not at all sold on it.  He also has accused the Repubs of terrorism. gun holding hostage takers, among other despicable names, which give new meaning to the term "bully pulpit". Obama is holding his ground---Chicago, tough guy style.  "I will not negotiate". Where was that toughness when we needed it in Libya, in Ben Ghazi, in Syria??  Oh, I forgot--that's different, that's called leading from behind. This is called, ' my way or the highway, 'cause I'm the boss here.' That is, until your approval ratings began to dramatically drop, then we heard, "I will negotiate anywhere, anytime, about anything----huh?  But you just said----ah, but what he meant was, he would negotiate, if and when the Republicans offered a full and unconditional surrender.  This man needs a course in Diplomacy 101. Lesson number one: You do not assume an air of kingly condescension,  stubbornly refuse to negotiate, hurl all manner of nasty names at your opponents, then demand a surrender without any compromise or negotiation----that's  a dictatorship, and not the way our system is designed to work.

National monuments, memorials, parks, and other public land closed? And death benefits denied to the families of our fallen soldiers? Cutting off cancer research? Really? The rumor that guards and officials at these sights are being told to make things inconvenient, and in general, to inflict as much pain as possible on the public is hard to believe, but getting easier all the time, as we observe a party and a president in full blown, childish anger, reacting petulantly and furiously against a ground swell of resistance to earlier contentious, forced policies, but ultimately, the enactment of a health care law that was never fully studied, analyzed, or approved by one single Republican, and could very well be the straw that breaks the bank, if not the country's heritage for freedom of the individual.  It was voted in by a rather unsavory method of "Reconciliation", in other words, jammed down the throats of congress, and the American people. Does Obama care, or does he only concern himself with his party's wishes and those who monetarily and politically control his decisions?  And who are they? Are Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi the actual "deciders"? Or are there others whose names we may never hear, but whose arc of power reaches deeper than we'll ever know? But Obama himself said "the buck stops with me", and so it does--cold comfort, when  that buck is used only to stonewall.

One stands in stunned wonder, both at the divisive audacity of this president who seems out of control and out of his depth,--- and the image of a bullied, weak, and fractured Republican party who has finally decided to stand up for itself, but should have a long time ago.This red line may be too much, and too late---it is painful to watch, and frightening to think of the consequences, but there comes a time
when strong opposition must reveal itself, even too late, or suffer the loss of existence for those who would oppose--in this case, a party whose job is to restore balance to a budget gone broke. Contrary to popular opinion, it is not necessarily only the "Tea Party", (named after those in Colonial times who rebelled against exorbitant British taxes to the colonies) or "tea baggers", as the president scornfully likes to call them, who are driving this Republican rebellion, but it is enough people within the party and without, as polls are showing, that are saying, "Enough is Enough!" But is it? And who will blink first? The Republicans, probably---already they have offered several alternative plans and even to fund various important branches of the budget, without any defaults or budget cut negotiations, in order to ease the pain on those being affected by the shutdown, but Obama, true to his word, held firm---all or nothing, fellas. Obama has yet to learn that going big, sometimes means rising above the little, even oneself, and doing what's right for all. His scathing words of hostage, ransom, etc were hints that he views himself as the gatekeeper of all that is good, and everyone else,  evil and mean----what a strange and sad commentary on a man who is supposed to be a wise mediator for all the people.

So where are we? The Affordable Health Care Act, will cost in the neighborhood of one trillion plus dollars,and  is already in such a state of confusion and numerous glitches that one wonders how even the lock step Senate could have passed such an unknown, unquantifiable  legislation in the first place. For the record, this blog is not against a new and improved healthcare piece of legislation that would actually be effective and not result in much higher taxes, especially for the middle class, and loss of free choice. What we have now is not that--it was hurriedly cobbled together, and is perhaps fatally flawed; but it is the law of the land, and it will stand until it either somehow succeeds, or collapses under its own weight.

The second issue of contention, a bloated budget that relies only on raising the limit of spending, will be a cross for our children to bear for generations to come.  Either the Republicans agree to raise the debt limit with no strings attached, having lost their battle to fear and intimidation; or they resist the pressure, stay true to their cause, and refuse to play until an agreement is reached to cut, minimize spending, and stop the bleeding. Doesn't somebody have to, regardless of political fallout, and even a measure of pain for everybody? If not now, when?

As of this Friday writing, another meeting has taken place, where John Boehner and President Obama got together, ostensibly, for purposes of negotiation----wrong. This time, Obama said he would agree to talk after the Republicans agree to his terms, and cancel all of theirs. What? Ironically, this repeat performance was looked upon the media as progress---thank you so much for your time, Mr. President.

Tough to negotiate with a non-negotaitor---especially when he holds most of the high cards, i.e. the White House, the Senate, and for the most part, the main media. What to do? Hold 'em or fold 'em? John Boehner's job is not to be envied---unlike the obedient Democrat politicians, the Republican types are a different breed of cat, independent and not to be coralled so easily. There is discontent among their numbers, as they bicker among themselves as to whether to go along to get along, or to stand up and fight back against what many perceive as a nation taking a life altering, hard, sharp turn to the left.

 One thing is certain---this is no "damn game"---this  is about our way of life and our future. Bets are on for the Republicans to fold with some kind of compromise, make that a concession.  No, let's call it what it is: A surrender to the mighty winds of politics, an elbow bending, head- bowing defeat to the prevailing powers, and a very different America----tea, anyone?? We're almost home.
 

The Seriousness of Syria

Seriously?? Another war??  The situation over Syria and our possible intervention is very serious stuff. Chemical  warfare is no laughing matter, but is it grounds for U.S. intervention?  Secretary of State, John Kerry certainly thinks so and laid out his case to us last week, stating that we must strike back immediately for humane reasons, as well as for the security of our country, and in fact the world. Has a familiar ring to it, doesn't it?  Let's see--seems similar questions and reasons were being posed back in post 9/11/2001, only we called them chemicals, weapons of mass destruction, and the country in question was Iraq. Yes, I remember it well. President Bush was later not only criticized, but figuratively crucified for taking us to war under similar circumstances. John Kerry  was singing a very different tune then.  Never mind that we had just been attacked by terrorists , and that Iraq was suspected of being a terrorist haven. And Contrary to President Obama's usual m.o., moving ahead without congressional approval,  President Bush actually did seek and receive congress' approval before making any final decisions,  public pronouncements, or taking any action. Let us remember also that at the time there were more than adequate intelligence reports to support the premise that there were stockpiles of chemical agents hidden in Iraq for purposes of chemical warfare.  Of course,  the Democrat party later chose to completely re-write history, accuse President Bush of lying and deceiving the public, and going to war for purely personal reasons---it was a hatchet job, politically motivated, and simply too easy to assassinate Bush's character, and that of the Republican party in order to win the next election. Granted the chemicals were never found, probably because Saddam Hussein refused to allow anybody to look for them until they were either well hidden, or he had been bluffing all along---we may never know, but the reasons for going to war were just as compelling at the time, and an evil dictator was taken down  as a result. At the very least, we had made a statement--
'don't mess with us.'

And now, we are faced with another despot, Bashar Al Assad, supposedly using chemical gasses to kill his own people, for purposes of keeping control and remaining in power against "rebels", who are not happy with the Assad's regime, and are begging for our assistance. But wait--- who are they, what do they stand for, and whose side are we on, anyway?  Nobody seems to know for sure, but it is quite clear that neither could be said to be on our side. They are engaged in a civil war, each side fighting for power, but neither are known for their love of America.  In fact, there are reportedly Al Queda members mixed in with the rebels and Christians are no longer safe, and are under attack since their uprising. Whether our best interests or democracy would be better served by our intervention is  dubious and dangerous, not only to us, but Israel in particular.  Polls say that  80% of Americans do not support military action---yes, we are war weary, and tired of being called upon to help nations who do not wish us well. We are also suspicious of politicians who so transparently base their words and actions upon their own political agendas, not the will  of the people, or the long term repercussions.

It is hard to trust hypocrites. And it is harder, still, to trust a president who at best seems indecisive and uncertain, and at worst---in over his head. We are watching a man terribly torn, trying to have it both ways now----live up to his boastful "red line" threat that we would retaliate if weapons of mass destruction became part of Assad's war---and yet find a way to stall and succumb to his inability to make big decisions, particularly when it comes to matters of the Middle East. That is part of the enigma of Barack Obama---we really don't know where he stands on issues of foreign vs. the USA. His stated
theory of "leading from behind" indicates a reluctance to have America remain the leader
in world affairs---but is it practical for our long term survival, and is it working?

 Kerry's speeches were the run-up to the attack.  Hold on to your seats,  we were going to war, albeit on a limited basis, nothing too serious, just a warning. Hm-m-m, a warning?  There were rumblings among the people, polls showed we were not happy, and then the United Nations and Great Britain said they were not going to support us. Obama was virtually acting alone. Backed into a corner of his own making, he announced on Saturday that he was making a "second decision"---he would now seek approval from the Congress--but oops, Congress is on summer break.  No problem, we'll wait a while till they return and then wait some more for them to debate this issue.  Make no mistake, though, he assured us he was ready to move forward with a strike, just wanted to do it with the peoples' support via Congress. Interesting words for a president who is famous for making many dubious decisions without much compromising or seeking Congress approval---selective executive power, it would seem.  But this one was different---it was not a war anybody really wants, including probably Obama, himself.  You could cut the uncertainty, confusion, and ineptness with a knife, as he tried to explain his change of mind---his words were spoken with the usual flair and confidence, but the news still came across as surprising and a bit embarrassing, if not confirmation that we are in less than steady hands.   It wasn't so much that he had made this "second decision" to seek congressional approval, as it was the order in which he made the decision---the whole process had been hesitant, jerky, and lacked conviction and resoluteness. John Kerry actually was beginning to look and sound more presidential, but even his reasons for going to war were not enough to convince us. Had he been hung out to dry, when Obama completely turned around  and decided not to move immediately, as Kerry had  hinted we were about to do?? Why wasn't congressional approval sought first?

The questions are many:  Should we make this our war? Will the promise of "no boots on the ground" hold and a warning "limited strike" be effective, or just provoke a deeper involvement, including the risk of a global confrontation? But if we don't take a stand against chemical warfare, will we see it spread and even strike here someday? If we strike, will we be supporting the advance of anti-Americanism? Are unlawful, inhumane atrocities committed in a far away country sufficient for an act of war, and the potential loss of our son's and daughter's lives? It has been so in the past, but can we continue to afford it, as our military resources are not as strong as they were, and our own domestic financial problems are severe? And finally, can we afford not to?

Congress will surely debate all of the above, and for that there is a great measure of relief---war is serious business, and we need to be sure of what, and how this time. The fluid, escalating, revolutionary events taking place in the Middle East are frightening and even bewildering, for we do not really understand their ways, their religious passions, nor their cultural values. But their problems will touch us sooner or later, one way or the other. Whether we act and how we act will determine not only their future, but ours as well--- for we are all part of a whole, like it or not, as the world shrinks ever smaller, and our fates inevitably intertwine. It is time for true leadership, wise counsel, and certainly---prayer.

What goes around, comes around---the lessons learned from Iraq are perhaps still teaching, but if ever there was a time to bring both parties of our government together, this is it---one can only hope that they will put down their political agendas, and work co-operatively to guide us through this crisis--too bad it's taking a war to do so---and a president that is floundering.








 

LOST IN THE LAND OF MILK AND HONEY

Like a camera zooming in on one object, the news rivets our eyes to what they want us to see, but let's expand our vision to the larger picture for a moment. Remember when we used to joke about someday having a "big brother", or some would say, big government, welfare style, who would know all our business?  Not so funny anymore---with the news that it is now not only possible to learn all about us, but do-able, and in fact , has been done. Spying is in, secrets are out. Is that what Obama meant when he said his would be the most transparent administration ever---but it's our slip that's showing, and our  business that isn't our own anymore. In fact, we don't even know our own business--- like what really happened in Benghazi, who was really behind the IRS scandal, what's really in the Affordable Health Care Bill, and how it's going to affect us, who or why we're going to drone/kill next, or whether our email or phone calls are being monitored.  In short big brother, my dears, is here to take care of you.  Trust him, he says,  he only has your best interests at heart, along with his--- and will do what's best for the common good. Ask him to pull up a chair. help himself to our lives; then we can go our merry way, leaving politics to the politicians, the news to the internet headlines, and any political discussions to those who refuse to mind their manners and insist upon offering an actual, opinion as to the state of our national affairs. Opinions are out, taboo too---somebody might hold it against you, and worse,----somebody might be eaves dropping, and well, you never know what could happen next.  Better to get along, and hope everything will work out. Won't it?

 In China they still throw people in prison for saying the "wrong" thing. Couldn't happen here? Ask the man who aired the anti-Islam video, initially blamed for the Benghazi attack---and who is currently still in jail in New York,  purportedly for a probation violation--- for nine months??

 Some countries will penalize you for associating with the wrong folks---not here? Ask the reporters at the Associated Press.

And some people in power, will encourage  a lynch mob mentality, even after a man has been declared innocent by a legal jury. Eric Holder, our very own Attorney General, has said  the federal government will agree to a civil trial, in order to appease those who insist that George Zimmerman is a racist and acted accordingly, on the night that he confronted a young black man who appeared in his neighborhood and upon being followed, fought with Mr. Zimmerman.  Jesse Jackson, the self appointed civil rights leader, has been doing his best to form and conduct marches in the streets of big cities to express outrage, as to what they perceive as an injustice. And even Barack Obama, who had the bad the judgement to show his personal feelings, by referring to Trayvon Martin, as a son he might have had, thereby injecting not only race, but presidential prejudice into a pre-trial case.   Mr. Zimmerman will never walk free---he is a marked man, smeared by a biased media, and pursued by those who insist upon creating a racial mountain out of a tragic mano to mano confrontation that if it had been a black on black crime, would never have made front page news. What if the media's views are wrong---that instead, George Zimmerman acted inappropriately, stupidly, but was not an evil racist, and shot Trayvon Martin in self defense?  That is what the jury concluded after
studying all the evidence, piece by painful piece. It was a teachable moment---the jury dared to go
against popular opinion, though have requested that they remain anonymous. It isn't that the death of
a young man wasn't a tragic loss, or even that the possibility of an injustice occurred---it's that the jury had spoken and in this country, that has to be enough--or risk mockery of our own laws.

We have much to learn in our hearts and in our minds, but is anybody listening to all the lessons??  Have we learned that you can't trust one man or even a whole congress of politicians from both sides to do what's best for you or the country?  They are only as good as those who put them there, and require  constant vigilance, or ultimately they begin to love their careers and power more than us.

 Have we begun to see that the liberties and sense of freedom our carefully structured government is supposed to provide, is slipping away, step by subtle step, as we placidly accept and go along to get along?  Harry Reid is successfully trying to do away with the filibuster in order to shut up the opposing minority Republicans in his majority Senate.  Way to go Harry, but not in the best interests of a fair and balanced government.

 That others are making profound life altering decisions without our or even our congress' advise and consent--i.e. drones, new unvoted for green energy laws and taxes, and presidential tweaking of the health care laws in order to favor whomever is deemed politically important?

That  racial issues in this country, while  much improved, are still simmering below the surface and need only the slightest provocation to ignite? Are the rioters really rioting for justice, or simply reacting to a ginned up crowd mentality? Are we still guilty of the deeds of the past, and must continue paying retribution into eternity,--- thereby enabling, excusing, and perpetuating dependency of those, who in the short term may benefit from their victimization, but self destruct in the long haul.  Bill Cosby has tried to advance this theme, by pleading with his people to realize it's their responsibility to change their status and their future, by changing their behavior, not by remaining angry, resentful victims of the past. He has been scorned and criticized, but is he not to be admired for speaking a truth to a people who must claim their own destiny by refusing to cling to the misdeeds of the past, to realize that much has already changed for the better, and will continue to, but that they themselves must be part of the change? As important as laws we can make to effect change, trials we can lean toward emotion, not fact, sympathies we can feel,  self help is the  ultimate way out of the ghettos, the crime, the drugs, the one parent families, the life of a perpetual victim----to finally say, enough. We are done being slaves to our past.  President Obama, the greatest evidence of racial change in America, is proof that we have come a long ways, and that by choosing not to live a life of victimization, he rose to the top of his abilities.

In a weekend speech, the president spoke out once again regarding the Martin/Zimmerman trial. The country was waiting. What would he say this time? Would he use his bully pulpit to "Shut it down", as Pat Robertson, the religious talk show host had advised a few days ago, when things were heating up and there was fear of rioting in the streets? Or would he go personal again and speak as a black man, not a president of all the people?  He actually did both, and it was from this blogs's perspective, one of the best, if not the best speeches of his presidency. He attempted to have us see things through the eyes of those who have suffered the remnants of an unspeakable history. He went personal,
not in a political way, but a very believable, sincere and helpful way---he did not condone violence or the re-do of a trial, but he did try to lay out some of things our society and laws could do to help the remaining inequalities in our system.

Bravo to you, President Obama---you finally led, and it was a shining moment---perhaps the most defining, purposeful moment in your career. Yes, it probably helped you win even more minority votes, but it rang true, and  one had the feeling that for once, you had painfully examined every point of view,  considered the whole picture, and rose above the politics of it all. You gave us a glimpse of what you could have been---a president for all the people. Not just an agenda seeking, politician, hell bent on having his own way. Now----about that Benghazi thing

Zooming our camera back out, the shrieking chaos continues, and the drumbeats of perhaps too many tribes threaten to wreck havoc  upon this land.  Where is the peace, the balance, the voice that will bring calm and healing to our country? Perhaps we have lost our way indefinitely.

There is an email making the rounds that is entitled, "We Are Not Coming Back". It's gist is that we've gone too far off course, to ever return to a more stable, happier America.  But, if that's true, then, it's based on a false premise that all things were acceptable to all, and we know that's not true.

 Ask those who still carry the wounds of the past. We needed to change, make things better, see the world and ourselves differently----we needed to mature, to grow up.  Perhaps that's what we're doing now. We are like a huge, noisy, brawling family, but who underneath, all want the same thing-- a little prosperity, peace, happiness, and the freedom to pursue those things--- but we are pulling in too many different directions. Is Big Bro the answer? Don't think so---big brothers, like big governments,  only work if they have little, lost, needy people to boss around.  That's not us,  is it???    

  







.













   

WHO ME??

What a hot mess we found ourselves in last week---government gone amok, out of control, and who's running the store? We don't know yet, but it's not looking good for any of us, most especially the President. otherwise known as the CEO and leader of the free world.  First Ben Ghazi, now comes the IRS and the AP scandals---but not to worry, nobody's to blame---nobody important anyway.  No siree, ---at least that's the party line.  David Axelrod, advisor to Mr. Obama expanded upon his save their a-- story by claiming that the government is" too vast" an entity to keep track of every little thing that happens and presidents, in case you're wondering, cannot be expected to know everything. Seriously, Mr. Axelrod? We thought you liked big, vast governments.  Your incredible ability to defend this presidency is exceeded only by your apparent and insulting conviction that people are too complacent or ill informed to question the very questionable actions, or lack thereof, of this administration. But guess what? He may be right! Today's polls show Obama's approval rating at 53%, which is considered pretty darn good, especially since the same polls show Americans don't approve of the way he's  handled any of the crises. So what's up with this dichotomy of opinions?? How can we love Obama, but not like what he does?

 Elementary, my dear Watson---the man has style, charisma, and a silver tongue. He admits to no involvement in anything negative, ever. No, no, no--- he sees, hears, nor speaks no evil---unless he's speaking about Republicans---or anybody who opposes or disagrees with him. Then we see a different man, kind of a scary, bullying kind of man. His partisanship is overbearing, but it comes across as parental scolding, rather than the dangerous over use of his power. What was he said once in a speech about "punishing our enemies and rewarding our friends"? And who can forget how he called out and humiliated Supreme Court Justice Roberts in front of the entire congress for helping to push through the "Citizens United" legislation, which allows for large corporations or any large groups to donate money to their favorite candidate, and was in Obama's mind a real threat to his second term candidacy.

Obama is the master of floating above the fray, but at the same time getting his digs in---he ridiculed those in the Tea Party as "Teabaggers", and has allowed others in his administration to say even worse things----yes, I'm referring to old "they wanta keep ya'll in chains" Joe Biden, V.P.  That  was a despicable, racist remark aimed at, you guessed, the Republicans, and was anything but presidential. or even vice presidential--more like a school yard intimidation technique. Shut 'em up, label them bad, make them very, very afraid--- is that what's happening here, a "culture of intimidation", as Mitch O'Connell, Senate Minority leader, said was the reason for all the cover-ups and mis- deeds by underlings who should know better, but misbehave anyway, even at the risk of losing their jobs?

 Has Obama set a tone, an example that at the very least encourages others to do what they think he would approve, or give a wink and a nod, instead of punishment?  His outrage and indignation this week belie what seems to be the flip side of his public, supposedly principled personality---win, at all costs. And his indignation seems to reach a boil  when he's the one being criticized---we are not to attack his integrity--no matter that it's beginning to look a little insufficient to the task---and even if he, himself, betrays his own pronouncements of fairness and dignity to all.

Are we really to believe that our president knew nothing of Ben Ghazi until it was too late? Possible, but not admirable--shouldn't he have known?  Or that the first he knew of the AP being requested to give out phone numbers of certain reporters was when he read about it in the newspapers?? Again, conceivable, but maybe if the government weren't so vast, he could have known, or at least made it known that he needed to be informed of such dangerous overstepping--- And that he only just learned of the IRS targeting conservative and other groups posing a threat to his election??? Come'on, that strikes at the heart and very core of our liberties to protect and preserve  our rights to dissent---we should be very, very afraid.  And the prez should either 'fess up or shake up the people to whom he has entrusted  to do the work of the country. The erosion of trust has to seep up to the White House---because either they knew about all the infractions , or they did not---if they knew, and did nothing about it, shame on them.  If they did not know---same shame, and more blame to those who bear the burden of the buck stop.

 And yet,  and yet--- Obama and company continue to bathe in the warmth of public approval. Not for what he does, mind you, but for how he looks, and what he says---which is that he will continue to do his job of fighting for the poor and middle class. Really? I thought he also had a few other responsibilities, like that of Commander and Chief, and preserving our rights to free speech and thought.

 Obama says we will get to the bottom of these latest scandals---seems he said that about Ben Ghazi---oh, I forgot, Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State, said, "What difference does it make now?" Hillary, that has to go down in history as one of the lamest, dismissable, and inappropriate remarks ever---are you kidding us? But so very Clinton-esque----"depends on what the word is, is".

 Excuse us for asking---but when will we stop approving, adoring, and ignoring---and start demanding accountability from an administration and its leader whose  cred is growing very thin, even as "like" polls are up.  Popularity is often an imposter----and woe to us who discover too little, too late. Because even the poor and middle class lose, if all of us lose our right to disagree without vengeful payback and intimidation, and to demand to know the truth when our people are killed, while serving in a foreign country.  It makes a huge difference, Hillary. We may be slow to learn sometimes, but our memories are long---

One last thought----for those who will continue to blame the Republicans for using these latest rounds of scandals for political reasons---have at it.  It is difficult these days to separate politics from true outrage.But this time, there is something very non-partisan imbedded in the IRS and AP invasions of privacy. If left unaddressed, preferably by an independent counsel, and unpunished, we are leaving open the door to behind the scenes intimidation, which will lead ultimately to people being afraid to speak their minds, write their opinions, challenge the status quo, donate their money to causes of their choice, and very possibly to a one party country--it won't be the America we used to know.  And it won't be anybody's fault, because nobody knew anything----except those who blew whistles,  and who knew better than to dismiss  the mounting evidence of a system which got too big too manage, and too political to be trusted.

SICK AND TIRED

 The Boston bombing last Monday was yet another reminder that all is not well.  Still reeling from the Newtown, Mass. school shooting, and bombarded daily by nuclear threats of a North Korean despot wishing to taunt and rattle the big, bad United States of America, we sadly shook our heads and wept  as news spread that once again, we had been struck by an unknown enemy, hell bent on creating fear,  chaos and destruction---and breaking our hearts as we learned that one of the dead victims was again one of our most precious, an 8 year old boy, caught in the web of an evil he will never understand, much less deserve.  How can we expect children to understand what is happening to our once relatively peaceful and safe country, when we can hardly wrap our own minds around a growing sense of danger and sudden violence within our midst, no longer on some distant shore.  No, things are not at all well---there is a collective feeling of losing our grip, our very ability to remain free in an increasingly policed society. Are we slowly coming apart at the seams?? Surrendering our freedoms to those who would harm us, terrorize us into submission, or simply  get attention for their own sick minds? Or is this just a time of transition, a rough patch from which we will recover, wiser and stronger?  There is always hope, as they saying goes, but the current feeling is that we have a ways to go---and even more disconcerting, that no one knows the way back or forward. This is unchartered territory---

Are we hopelessly lost? Sick of it all, somewhat bewildered, and too tired to fight back? We are asked to become more vigilant for anything suspicious looking in order to fight terrorism---really?  Is that all it will take?  Wars and vicious crimes are rarely won by vigilance---that may stop or derail an act of terror--but it won't stop the next plan or the incentive to keep trying.  As these words are written, it has become known that the Boston bombing suspects were two young Russian men with vague and rumored connections to Jihadist organizations. Regardless of the connection, the act was one of terrorism. The two men had gone to school here, one became a U.S. citizen, but we and our way of life were presumably, and if they are found guilty, no match for those who drew them into their circle of religious fervor. It was almost a relief to hear that at least it probably wasn't "one of our own", another mentally ill person, acting out his crazed misery upon us all.  Domestic terrorism is harder to bear, as it is home grown, and carries with it our own home grown problems. But at least we can deal with it on our terms.

International terrorism, on the other hand, is a tough enemy to fight---they are all over the world, and now they are here, among us.  They despise us and feel there is no greater honor than to die in martyrdom while fighting for their cause.  Even our president, Barack Obama, seems overwhelmed at the oncoming waves of unfortunate events---his careful words, in describing the Boston bombing, as anything but terrorism, show a man understandably using great restraint, and perhaps wisdom, but his handling of otherwise obvious cases of terrorism in this country and abroad,( i.e. Fort Hood, Ben Ghazi) together with his "leading from behind' philosophy in other international crises, suggest a certain timidity and weakness, even a reluctance to confront an enemy, naming it for what it is. He has characterized our past mode of operandi as too bullying and aggressive, rather than perhaps a necessarily strong leadership, in a world all too eager to fill a vacuum with their own agendas. Has Obama weakened us with his domestic divisive attitudes, his less than bold presence on the world scene, and his refusal to address the Jihad infiltration problem right here in this country---or made us better, less agitating? Does a kinder, gentler nation stand a chance against religious zealots who do not value life over their beliefs, or power hungry nations who crave dominion over freedom?

We are feeling less secure, as the inevitable spread of religious extremism marches not only into other countries, but into our own, our towns, and murder even our children. It has become very personal, and very deadly. We knew they would come, it was inevitable, only a matter of time---but what to do about it? Should we begin to see that we cannot ignore or allow other countries to become united against us--not even distant Libya, Iraq, Syria or Egypt, some of whose causes seemed just, but whose outcome is dubious? North Korea, on the other hand, is using its own brand of terrorism, as its young leader, Kim Jung Un taunts us with his supposed nuclear capability---he is the biggest bomb of all now, and one wonders where he gets off taking on the United States of America---and getting away with it. We are now negotiating with him via China---blackmail might be a better term.  He has been put on the back pages of the media for now, but we shall hear from him again---terror, via nuclear bomb threats in the hands of a young, foolish anti-American autocrat, may become the worst terror of all.


But as we picked up the pieces of another life shattering event last Monday in Boston,  the strength and compassion of our people as they rushed into the flames to administer comfort and aid was proof that we don't run from problems---and that when the chips are down, we, the citizens, help our neighbors and ourselves.  The people of Boston came through big time with almost instantaneous response. Sick and tired? Not when the chips are down---and it didn't take an act of congress to get help. Our system of law and order worked admirably, bravely, and swiftly--though not without further loss of life, as one officer was killed and another injured. The suspects have been caught and if proven guilty will be brought to justice---life will move along.  We will be a little more wary, a little less joyful, and a lot more aware that our lives have changed, along with our country.  The land of the free and the home of the brave---seems to be under siege at the moment and perhaps for some time to come.  Are we courageous and good enough to remain free, and not intimidated slaves of terroristic blackmail, or some other form of rule or government?  The answer remains unknown---but the little boy who died on Monday deserves a better place.  He wrote before he died, "Please no more hurting people"---if only it were that easy. And if only the enemy cared---

On Friday, Boston went into complete lock-down mode.  One of the suspects was found and shot dead Friday morning.  The other brother remained at large, but not for long. Before it was over, stores were closed, ball games cancelled, schools locked and empty, and people told to stay inside their homes. Incredible--- a whole American city brought to its knees by two young men, apparently with a  mission to do just that.

Someone said this week that America is being tested---to see what we're made of.  Evil has come calling, right here at home---whether it is a religious fanatic, a power lusting foreign leader,  or a deranged person out to kill in order to vent his rage---the result is the same, but the former is more dangerous, for its army is invisible, and it's goal is elimination of all who do not believe in their cause and their way of life.  It is a creeping, relentless, determined enemy, and though we are not its only target, we are the biggest, and the most reviled.  Monday was a grim reminder that they who would harm us are not going away.  We are made of many things, and what we were, is not necessarily who we are today.  But as we watch our freedoms being slowly chipped away by those who wish to take us down,  it remains to be seen who we will become.

 President Obama said this week that Americans refuse to be terrorized---talk is cheap, but I liked that, and him for standing strong.  If only it were that easy----didn't work for the little boy with the sign. But maybe we are getting sick of being sick and tired---













  

THE BIG BLUFF---SEQUESTER SCARE!!

Who's  bluffing who with the latest political catch word and cliff crisis. Ho hum---wake me when it's over, but here we go again--down the rabbit hole of Washington politics. It's really getting old, this game playing, and should we, the UNITED states of American not be able to do better?? Should our leaders be allowed to get away with this childish finger pointing, and should we continue to be played
like a hapless audience, privy only to what the media decides to tell us, and hear only what our president blasts with his huge microphone, condemning, instead of leading?

 "Sequester" is the name, and "squeeze" is the game, according to Mr. Obama who is blatantly employing the old by now scare tactic to bring the Republicans to heel,  and the public once again around to his way of thinking--- to keep spending and tax the rich one more time. Put the squeeze  on the opposition, play on their emotions of an already fearful, jumpy public, and scare the daylights out of everybody--it goes like this:  If the sequester happens, the sky is going to fall, and we will have only the Republicans to blame. The bluff is on, and if the Republicans don't cave this time, on March 1st, we will face major cuts to the tune of $800 billion to both domestic and military programs---the irony is that Obama himself suggested the sequester back in 2012, as a way to force some sort of agreement on the budget crisis. It was his baby---not the Republicans.  Or was it his gamble, his bluff, to force the Republicans into submission? After all, something had to be done, and if nothing has been done,
by now, how about we make the punishment so severe that everybody will have to suffer, and the blame once again falls to the Republicans?  Perfect.

We've seen it before from Obama, but this time the smell of demagoguery and strong arming the opposition is beginning to look and feel like dirty pool. a set-up, and victory at any cost. The misrepresentation of the facts, and blatant attempt to intimidate and bully the Republicans into submission are hallmarks of a man hell bent on getting his way, regardless of principle or fair tactics. Life and politics aren't always fair, but manipulating and exaggerating the facts are not only beneath the presidency, but dangerous to a democracy which relies on the truth, and a tendency to believe that presidents are above dirty politics. So,  March 1st is the deadline---Obama has offered no hint of compromise, insisting on more tax revenue,  and the Republicans are showing no signs of folding this time, feeling they have already met the president's demands, having agreed to $620 billion in taxes during the last cliff go round,  and that he is once again moving the goal posts, pushing the envelope and them around, by  asking for the elimination of tax loopholes and deductions. They have presented two alternative plans to the sequester, which Obama ignored. His proposal mantra is no further taxes equal no further cuts---except, across the board ax cuts, which were his idea.  Uh, did you hear me guys? Don't make me do this! I really mean it! And guess who's going to look bad?

 So are we headed for the final show down, the really bad, back- breaking cliff? President Obama wants us to think so.  He has warned that we will suffer major job losses, weakened military security, children will go hungry, fires will be left to burn, meat to rot, crimes will run rampant, planes may not fly, and on and on. It's beginning to sound like white noise and worse, manipulation. One gets the feeling that Obama has seen the movie "Lincoln" too many times and fancies himself a similar do good crusader---only we're not talking black slavery here. It's about our debt crisis and how to solve it. All who oppose him, chiefly the Republicans, are bad, thoughtless, shallow, and uncaring. It is an absurd argument that all this calamity is even possible under a capable, reasonable government, and ridiculous to blame it all on the opposing party.

 It is true, however, that if the sequester goes through, there will changes and there will be pain, but it is highly doubtful that there will be consequences as dramatic as Obama would have us believe.  Cuts, after all, do finally have to come, if we are ever to climb out of our debt and begin to balance it. There is plenty of waste in both the military and domestic budgets, and preparations are already being done to deal with less revenue coming in. Adjustments will be made that perhaps should have been made long ago, just as all of us have had to do with our personal finances. And unless everyone panics, compliments of Obama's dire predictions, we will survive. The stock market seems to think so---it's doing just fine, in spite of the president's doom's day proclamations.  Perhaps the market knows what we all intrinsically know---bluffs are usually over blown,  puffed up threats to produce a desired result----and regardless of the outcome, life and the economy will keep percolating along. Could it be the market place, the barometer of our capitalistic confidence, is stronger than the political voices which are constantly shrieking at our ears, and is having less and less influence?? We could use some of that
confidence.

We are oh so tired of cliffs, crises, bluffs, and threats.  We want peace, quiet, reason, and balance again---not one sided governance, dictatorial attitudes, and leaders who speak only in terms of their own self interests and ideologies.  There were, after all, almost half of us who voted
against Obama and his policies---should he not realize this, and learn to temper his partisan outbursts? But why change what's not broken?  He obviously thrives on chaos and battles, having mastered the art of appearing calm and wise while trying to make others appear obstructive and lost headed?? It seems to be working---Obama is winning at the moment, according to the polls. He stands on the nation's stage and bellows his message of government welfare. It is hard to argue against such things as education, infrastructure, research and development, clean energy, and childhood programs. But at some point, perhaps now, we will have reached a tipping point---who will pay for it all?  Obama's believers believe he will find a way---others are convinced he doesn't care, that he is focused on fixing America, not the budget.

The sequester looms large, and either will happen or not. The bluff may not work, and Obama may regret his giving birth to what he wants to avoid---- major cuts, without major tax hikes.  But, the bonus is the blame game, so he wins this round either way.

 But here's the final hooker, the sting of a sting operation--- and it is much worse than the sequester----are you ready for this? Perhaps it is we who are being bluffed, distracted from the real problem. The debt crisis is so deep and growing at a faster rate than our economic growth at a frail 2%,  that neither Obama's proposed tax hikes or the sequester will help much ---medicare, medicaid, and social security are the biggest drains and must be addressed, along with a tax over haul. But no voices are heard for these things---or allowed to be heard over the din of pettiness and politics.

 Are we actually believing to spend more is the answer? Or are we simply procrastinating and handing our ills and bills to our children and grandchildren? It all adds up to irresponsible leadership and a trusting public willing to follow. Isn't it time we demand more than political gridlock, campaign style speeches, bluffs, and sequesters---which by the way, the dictionary defines as "to set apart" or "to seclude".  Right---we're getting really good at setting aside the hard stuff---or being bluffed.




 

TELL ME A STORY

Do you ever imagine that hundreds of years from now people will be reading about us? We're living our story, and it's a real cliff hanger, wouldn't you say? Well, we got there , to the very edge ----brakes squeeling, stock markets teetering, the American people joking about what a sick joke this all was--- congressmen looking ever so important with the weight of the world on their shoulders as they filed past the reporters to announce the long awaited decision---financial  crisis averted for now. Ah, c'mon, you knew it all along, it was just a matter of time, of Obama refusing to deal, then flexing his presidential muscles at Boehner, and finally taunting him and the Republicans into caving to the inevitable It was a circus, a show, a shameless example of our leaders at work and political theatre enough to make you want to gag.  But they got 'er done, and uh,---what exactly was that?? Very little, unless you consider power plays and ideological gamesmanship more important than the actual underwhelming "compromise" hammered out at the 11th hour by none other our favorite uncle,Vice Pres. Joe Biden and John Boehner, the beleagured Republican Speaker of the House . Our story continues, but who's doing the telling?  And are we merely characters in the story, or are we helping to write it??  President Obama is fond of saying he just needs to tell the story better, improve the narrative.
How very patronizing---as if we are merely onlookers, incapable of perception-- and need his spinning tale to be captivated.

What does it say about our president that he had to call in his v.p. to do his last ditch cliff negotiating?   It screams that Obama doesn't negotiate, never had any intention of doing so---he negotiates by not negotiating, because he didn't have to, obviously doesn't know how to, and genuinely doesn't like compromise. He takes on all comers pretty much the same--- petulant and angry if he doesn't get his way, and mean and threatening even as he's winning.  It 's my way of the highway, guys, 'cause I'm right, and not only are you wrong, you are losers. You and your party are going down---the election told me so, I've got the wind at my back, and have no intention of serving down the middle and catering to anyone who disagrees with me---transformational, isn't it? Never did like the two party system---it gets in my way, and then I have to use my excecutive privilege, which is pretty cool, and much less messy. But hey, I'm the main character here, in fact I'm writing much of the story, and I shall do what I please---turn the page.

What you say?  Obama gave a little---yes, he did---he raised his stretch-ey definition of"millionaire" to those making $500,000 a year, instead of $250,000.00 ----but the Republicans sold their souls, caved on he one thing they promised never to do, and got very little in return.  The point is, this was more of a philosphocal fight than a solution, and Obama wins that one, based on sheer numbers of an electorate that was either conned or prefers to believe in a fairy tale. It goes like this--   The rich should pay more, even if it doesn't help all that much---they have much too much, makes us all feel better to take some, gotta help a little, and relieves us of having to tackle the harder issue. The real problem, spending, was hardly debated, let a lone a few entitlements that may not even get enacted.  But on that point, Obama balked, and warned that any further talks re entitlement spending will not sit well with him--- "that's not the way it's going to work"---not only did he sound once again like the  stern patriarch in charge, but he seems unconcerned about spending money till the cows come home as long as it contributes to his idea of re-tailoring this country to his view, which is looking more and more like a welfare state. But never mind---he wins for now. He is a great story teller and has a gift for persuading readers to see things his way---to lull, charm, and believe. The plot thickens---

Now, as people are realizing that their payroll checks are a bit less, due to the fact that Obama did not extend the cut he had instigated in 2010, they are wondering what happened---there wasn't much mention of that during all the cliff talks.  There will surely be more little surprises as Obamacare kicks in. Insurance companies are already raising premium prices. The whole picture is  not looking that much better.  Yes, these things take time, but transformation can happen very quickly under a president that does not value the role of a two party system, balance, and due process of legislation. How much time do we have before we look up one day, and realize that where we were wasn't so bad---and where we are isn't so good.  Already we are hearing that the middle class will surely feel the pain and perhaps the brunt of our economic load---tax the rich more?? That's the fairy tale part---sorry, but when we're spending more than we make, there simply isn't enough to
go around anymore. But never mind, we are moving forward to the next exciting chapter---

 The really big issue of the national debt, its ceiling and whether to raise it looms large and the two sides are squaring off again---- the Republicans demanding that entitlement cuts be part of the final deal, and the president stating unequivocally that will not be the case. Adding fuel to the fire, President O. made his usual TV appearance, using his bully pulpit to shame and bully the Republicans into submission by warning that not to raise the ceiling his way, i.e. without major cuts, will be irresponsible and absurd, never mind that he is responsible for the largest debt increase in history and seems oblivious to addressing our economic free fall---and well, you get it boys,  I'm wearing the white hat, here, and you might as well ride on outta town---don't forget your hats, the black ones. Does this kind of blatant partisanship make anyone else squirm just a little??  What next? An executive order to raise the debt ceiling? It would be nice, even leader- like, and certainly legacy engendering if perhaps just this once President Obama would choose to act as a mediator between two differing philosophies, instead of the benign, but intractable dictator he seems to favor---and to back off just a bit. Sometimes being "right" isn't always the right way to lead--it begets resentment and smacks of assumed omnipotence. Trust me, says the story teller, I was sent here to write big things---go big, or go home is my motto. But does he have to paint everyone else as small???

So what's the answer to our disappearing two party system, our bulwark against the power of one philosophy radically changing the country? It would  be nice if conservatives/Republicans could be counted on to stand firm against the crumbling walls of a once sustainable economy and a country envied far and wide for its opportunity for all who were willing to work for it, and a beacon of freedom. But they won't because they can't---the media/public pressure too great, the fairy tale too seductive, the people too willing, and the price too politically high. No, unless Mr. Boehner and posse become Braveheart and decide to speak their party's truth to power, we are witnessing the dissolution of the Republican party---and more, the possible transformation of our country into a welfare state faster than you can say" constitution". Don't even think about the constitution, says the yarn master---my story is much more relevant to today---follow me, we're almost there.

 Perhaps the GOP must, as some suggest, transform themselves---maybe their story simply doesn't click anymore. The country has turned left, and right isn't right anymore.  But wait!!??---stop the press, the story we're being told, the narrative being spun----could it be possible that we're being more misled than enlightened and progressful? Has the great and clever Democrat machine and the mostly biased media managed to mischaracterize and misconstrue the Republican party's values, done a phenomenal job of telling us a story that is based more on emotion and spin than fact? "Look", as the politicians like to say, look at it clearly, or at least differently,-- could this be a case of mistaken or perverted identity, even in fact, not the real story??

 But meanwhile, as a back story, suppose for a moment that the Republican party in actuality is the one who: Has the  bigger, more inclusive tent, who respects all men/women regardless of  background, lineage, creed or faith, NOT the party who succeeds by keeping people down instead of encouraging them to get up; Promotes self reliance and belief in the individual, so that everyone can find their own strength, NOT the nanny government as a crutch and panacea for all ills; Is not devoid of compassion, but is convinced that a conservative approach to government that exists to help, but not hinder, is truly for the larger good, NOT one which dominates and weakens it's people and its economy by its emphasis on taxes, recipiency and entitlement; They are not all gun crazy enthusiasts and anti-abortionists, BUT they do believe in the second amendment, and the sacredness of life. They are not all Christians, Jews, Muslims, or atheists---they are all those things, and more, BUT they do not mock or disrespect anyone, while pretending to be the party of tolerance. And finally that this is a  party who still believes in the American Dream, where all who wish and work hard can be part of the success story, NOT the seductive fairy tale of an Utopia where everyone has their fair share, but no one has too much---except of course, those in power, the ones who weave the tale of class warfare, they vs. us, and a government  so big and so caring that nobody has to worry about anything---and they all lived happily ever after. End of story.

 Or pick up a different book---Once upon a time there was a country where everyone wanted to live, they came from all over, and all was good for a while, until one day, the country could no longer support everyone or pay its bills, the people began to grumble, the social safety nets began to shred, the taxes, though huge, were no longer enough to sustain the national debt, or supply for all the needs of the public good, the president and congress kept spending, and scolded anyone who disagreed with them, calling them irresponsible and absurd. Not wishing to be thought of as irresponsible and absurd, those who disagreed retreated, thinking they would live to fight another day.  But the other day never came---the country fell into disrepair,  and -----there were much fewer rich people, many more poor people, not enough jobs, poor quality and limited medical care, reduced help for the poor and sick,----the dream had died, and what was left was only a memory of what once was. Until someone, not necessarily a Republican or a Democrat, or even one person--but many  with great vision, wisdom, and courage, one day stood up and said with one voice----enough. This story isn't us, man! Our real story, the one our grandchildren will read about, belongs to all of us, not one party, a president, or even his Vice.  Listen up--we are the story, and we can write our own ending, or our new beginning.  Now is the time----get involved.