Power Grab

Immediately after earning accolades from the world for brokering a cease fire between Hamas and Israel, Egypt's president Morsi issues a decree, granting himself wide-ranging unchecked powers. Coincidence? I think not.

His involvement in the Gaza situation made him a player on the world stage. He gained instant credibility and political capital. Much like a 5-year-old with a dollar bill in his pocket as he walks into a candy or toy store, Morsi couldn't wait to spend it. It's a little disturbing.

Even more disturbing is the fact that we have a newly-elected president with a penchant himself for executive fiat. It's interesting to me that I haven't heard anyone draw an analogy between the two. Maybe it's happened, and I've just missed it. Maybe people are afraid to put the idea out there in case it gets snatched up. Maybe I'm becoming a conspiracy theorist in my middle age.

What does he have to lose? He doesn't have to be elected again, and he clearly has the mindset that he can do whatever he wants, because he feels that he was handed a mandate in the election.

Give it a thought...

It's the Evil Rich? {sigh}

During the weeks it took for many of my FaceBook friends to get their power back after Hurricane Sandy, I was relieved to see that some of them had purchased generators so they could continue to reside in their homes. 

Enter Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times op-ed section and his article "A Failed Experiment." Apparently, use of private generators is part of an evil plot on the part of the wealthy to create workarounds on the backs of the rest of the public. (I wonder if my liberal friends in the Northeast realize that they've just become part of the evil rich?)

Apparently, it hasn't occurred to him that towns, counties and states are lagging in the revenue they need to support their services, not because of tax cuts for the "wealthy," but because of the dire state of the economy where tens of millions of people are unemployed, under-employed or have been forced into early retirement, leaving no income or too little income to tax. And homes are being abandoned for foreclosure, because they can't be sold for a decent price, so property taxes are not being paid. We all know that we can't tax our way out of this. Even if you tax the evil rich 100% of their income, it wouldn't even come close.

I'll say this about Mr. Kristof: I know nothing about him, but from the tone of his writing, I believe he means well. He doesn't seem to be the type of Democrat with a hidden agenda. He seems to be an ivory-tower liberal that espouses all the ideals that allow folks like him, my mother and the somehow-not-so-evil-rich celebrities on the left coast to puff up their chests and feel good when they look in the mirror. I do believe his heart is in the right place, but I also believe he's misguided. He's fallen in love with the way of life in Europe and the Middle East as only someone who can come home to the sanity of the United States can do. And what makes this type dangerous is that they set themselves up as pawns for Democrat politicians whose motives may not be quite so pure.

I may have said it before, but if not I'll say it now. There are politicians and "community organizers" (code for those who make their livings by exploiting minorities) out there who pretend to be working for the poor/"underprivileged"/disenfranchised/etc., but whose real goal in life seems to be punishment of anyone who has achieved something. The tax on the rich is not to benefit the poor...it's revenge. The true beneficiaries of all this class warfare are the purveyors of said class warfare—the liberal political class.

But when they go after the wealthy, they always seem to forget that if someone is that wealthy, they have the means to take that wealth and relocate to somewhere else where it won't be confiscated for the benefit of someone who hasn't earned it. That's a component of socialism, folks. And to quote Margaret Thatcher, "Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They [socialists] always run out of other people's money." They also forget that money not gained by your own labor is neither appreciated or spent wisely. Punishing the rich will not truly benefit the poor. 

Taxing the rich is not the solution. Food stamp EBT cards and free phones are not the answer. Back-to-back years of unemployment benefits are not the answer. Giving people anything is not the answer...fish, for example. I'm no Biblical scholar, but it doesn't take either a scholar or a Christian to understand the concept that if you give a man a fish you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.

Here in the South, we like sugar and sweetness. Our sweet tea is like syrup and  so are our disparaging remarks. So, in closing, all I can think to say about Mr. Kristof is bless his heart...

The New Definition of Bipartisanship

I thought I knew what bipartisanship meant, but ever willing to admit if I'm wrong, I double-checked with our friends over at the Merriam-Webster Dictionary...and here's what they said:

: of, relating to, or involving members of two parties <a bipartisan commission>; specifically : marked by or involving cooperation, agreement, and compromise between two major political parties <bipartisan support for the bill>

Yep...that's what I thought. I really just wanted to check for the "involving cooperation, agreement, and compromise between two major political parties" part, because watching recent events, you would think that the word bipartisan—particularly when used in combination with the noun "solution"—means "involving a compromise or concession on the part of the Republican Party in favor of the philosophies of the Democrat party."

I could have sworn that during the debates, Barack Obama promised that he was suddenly willing to work with Republicans to achieve a bipartisan solution. But since the election, while we hear conciliatory/flexible language from John Boehner, Saxby Chambliss and Lindsey Graham regarding revenue (even tax hikes), there is no indication of flexibility coming from the left. 

There must be a tax hike on the wealthy (the debate about whether a couple making upwards of $250K/year makes you wealthy or one of the evil "millionaires and billionaires" will have to wait until another rant), and there must be yet another increase in the debt ceiling, even though it was a concession on the debt ceiling last year that got us into this sequestration mess to begin with. 

Obama says, "Let's begin our work with where we agree," indicating that Congress should go ahead and pass legislation to "hold down rates on the majority of Americans." Oh, and they'll work on spending cuts later...after they raise the debt ceiling so they can spend more money.

And I some oceanfront property I'd like to sell you in Arizona...

Something is Rotten in the State of Denmark

I don't know anything about David Petraeus personally or professionally. Every time I've seen him on television, he's seemed very professional. He's a highly-decorated 4-star general and holds a PhD. You don't reach those levels in your career and academia if you're stupid or have no honor...or without having all the skeletons in your closet deeply probed to make sure that he didn't have anything there that would make you vulnerable and put national security at risk. And, it's not insignificant that he's the director of the CIA, where they take snooping to the highest possible level.

So, with all that in mind, doesn't it seem the least bit odd that he would be caught in the most pedestrian of indiscretions? And isn't the timing interesting? After Bengazi...after "intelligence" was thrown under the bus, after the election...but just before he was to testify before Congress.

I won't go so far as to say that he was set up...that someone targeted him and seduced him because they wanted to "have something on him" in order to control him. However, I will say that this has to be more than coincidental. At the very least, this story is a distraction from the Bengazi hearings, and at worst, it takes him, and any information he could impart, out of play during those hearings.

On a personal note, as much as I feel that infidelity is inexcusable, and it always makes me sad, I do respect him for coming clean. I admire him for owning it instead of burying it under a vague "personal reasons" excuse. 

In semi-related news, Chris Kubasik, the president of Lockheed Martin was asked to resign for having an "close, personal relationship" with a subordinate.

Good heavens, this puts a damper on the romance of Friday night date night. Zippers are not a new invention. Do high-powered men need to get instructions on how to keep them closed with every pair of pants they buy? {sigh}

What Mandate?

It's over. Thank goodness. The only thing worse than four more years of Obama and Biden would've been four more years of Obama and Biden after a protracted election dispute.

I stayed up late enough to see the results, but not late enough to hear Obama's victory speech. Tonight, I risked physical illness to listen to the full speech. (I can't help it. It's how he changes the intonation depending on his audience...and that clipped cadence that tap dance on my very last nerve.)

First, let's digress a moment and talk about the phrase "give back." That implies that the fruits of Romney's and Ryan's labor were given to them in the first place. Well, 'cause you know, you didn't build that. {sigh} 

And secondly, the girls are charming young ladies, but some of us have not, and never will, fall in love with Michelle. She's a little too condescending and always looks likes she's just smelled something foul. She's just not nice. And as much as the media would like to make you believe it, wearing a teeny-tiny belt under an understated bustline does not make you a fashion icon.

But on to the main topic of my second rant of the day. In case you never went back to look, the final results were:


Barack Obama    60481384 50%
Mitt Romney 57678451 48%

It wasn't a cake walk...and he wasn't handed a mandate. Even ABC News admits that. We didn't all get together, hold hands and sing Kumbaya and validate his policies and his vision for moving forward to "perfect" our nation (the implication being that only he can make it perfect...grrr). He needs to remember that 48% of us didn't want him in office again. And, oh, by the way, there were some of those others who only considered him the lesser of two evils, not necessarily a candidate they really wanted.

So, President Obama, you wanted four more years? You've got it. But we're watching more closely now. A little bit of the bloom is off the rose. Even the mainstream, leftward-leaning, selectively-editing media calls you out...every now and then. The comedians have started having a little fun at your expense. You've been fact checked and found to have a somewhat loose relationship with the truth. 

Hope is broken and the change has been disappointing. We all have wounds from these last four years, even if we're fortunate enough to remain gainfully employed. My husband and I are extraordinarily fortunate, but even so, we've lost $50,000 in the value of our home (in spite of spending a small fortune on a full kitchen renovation) since I last had it appraised two years ago. That was well into your watch, Mr. Obama, so let's not blame good ol' W for that, K?

The time has come to roll up your sleeves for more than a photo op. You've spent the last four years campaigning, but you don't have that excuse anymore. It's time to quit blaming Bush and making excuses, park the big, fun airplane and do the job you've been avoiding. Let your celebrity friends have parties without you. Golfing and basketball will have to wait. And those daily security briefings? You should probably take those in person instead of on paper. You may even want to ask a question or two. Jobs council meetings? Perhaps those are important too.

You've promised to get things done. Some of us know that sequestration was your administration's idea to begin with, and now it's your cross to bear. Fix it. Obama-phones, Obamacare, birth control pills and Margie's food stamps aren't guaranteed in the Constitution, but the federal government's responsibility to provide for the common defense is. The fiscal cliff is looming, and the military who will provide our defense is at risk for going over the edge. And, just in case someone forgot to tell you, bipartisanship doesn't mean "the Republicans always concede." It means you'll have to learn to communicate without a teleprompter and make a few concessions of your own.

And after you make sure the military won't suffer, you should probably mend fences with the intelligence folks you threw under the bus after the spin you created to protect your "Bin Laden is dead and Al Qaeda is on the run" myth backfired on you. We need them to provide information to the military about the enemy. Don't worry, though. Even if the worst is revealed when the truth comes out, no one will talk about impeachment. Choosing Joe Biden instead of Hilary Clinton for your VP was a great strategic move. 

Never forget, there is another election in two years. Another opportunity for Republicans to put forward better candidates than Richard Mourdock, and you just might lose your Senate majority. You haven't seen a lame duck like that the one you'll see in the mirror if that happens. 

You're one of the most incredibly arrogant and narcissistic human beings I've ever seen, so you should be happy now. All eyes are on you. But you're lucky. Even those of us who don't like you, love our country. We'd like nothing better than to see you succeed and have to admit that we're wrong. On the other hand, if you don't clean up this mess, Hell hath no fury like the next Democrat candidate will face...or, like what her husband will turn on you should your poor performance makes it impossible for her to achieve her dream. I wouldn't want anyone with the last name of Clinton that upset with me.

It's the Economy, Stupid!

Good Lord, how many times have we heard that? And we still don't get it. And until we get it, there's no good way to get a conservative of any type in the White House or to get control of the Senate.

Republicans and conservatives, let me say it clearly: let go of the moral right social issues or NO conservative values will prevail. 

There are many one-issue voters out there among the independents. Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan would've been the best thing to happen to the economy, and independents probably recognized that, but if you have a bunch of stodgy, out-of-touch old white guys out there spouting moronic crap about abortion or same-sex marriage, they will vote against anyone else of the same party out of fear.

You can't legislate morality. You can't control the moral behavior of others. If you don't believe in abortion, don't have one!! If you don't want your daughter to have an abortion, be a good parent and teach her your own family's values!!! But if the girl down the street chooses to have an abortion, for whatever reason, it's not your business. You have a right to your faith, your values and your opinions...and so does she.

Same thing for same-sex marriage. If you don't believe in same-sex marriage, don't marry someone of the same sex! If you don't want your daughter or son to marry someone of the same gender, that's a little more complicated than imparting values, but I would hope that you'd prefer your child to be happy in a committed relationship than to live a lie and be miserable. And, as for the hypothetical couple down the street (since I don't think my current very small subdivision has any same-sex partners), it's not anyone's business but theirs. Furthermore, if a gay or lesbian couple gets marriage, it has no bearing on the sanctity of my marriage your marriage or the institution of marriage as a whole. I've said this many times, and I'll say it again: as someone who's been divorced twice, I've contributed more to the decay of the institution of marriage than any gay or lesbian couple I know. It's up to me to right that ship--with the help, of course, of the fabulous man who is now my husband.

I know some truly amazing people in loving relationships with partners of the same gender. You can't paint them with the brush of the erroneous stereotype of a promiscuous gay lifestyle, then turn around and refuse them the deepest level of a loving commitment. How dare any of us presume to speak for whatever higher power or creator we believe in.

Libertarians and other fiscal conservatives join with Republicans because there's no other way to get to a majority to elect politicians who claim to have fiscal sanity. Other parties will never stand a chance, because of the media coverage and exclusions from the debates. So we're stuck with each other.

But unless you want to see our country go with policies that are diametrically opposed to everything you believe in, perhaps you should go for part of what you believe in. Stop trying to control the moral behavior of others. Until you do, you will continue to have a party in power who want to and will be able to control important parts of your behavior and, even worse, your liberties.

When it comes to issues that don't harm others and won't affect you directly, I respectfully suggest that you live and let live. If it comes down to it, a good economy, national defense and your second amendment rights should be a top priority for your leader. Otherwise, you won't have the freedom to live according to your faith and values.

The Beginning of the End

When I started this, I really, really needed an outlet for my political feelings. And then we had the debates, and then I voted early, and then I ran out of steam.

Okay, so part of the reason was that blogging was something I did instead of watching The Five and chatting with my husband when he was travelling on business. And about the time of the final debate, he stopped travelling. I'm sure had I been more passionate about blogging, he would've been fine with it, but I honestly would rather spend time with him than typing up a rant.

Honestly, there did come a point when Obama turned me off so much, I didn't even want to think about him enough or spend time researching supporting quotes and sources for my opinions. I actually became too disgusted with the man and his changing voice inflection and his celebrity friends to even rant against him.

Tonight it's supposed to end, but I'm afraid it won't. I'm afraid that it will be so close that he'll trot out all his lawyers to start the lawsuits. On the other hand, I'm hopeful. I really do believe that Romney has an edge when it comes to enthusiasm. I think some of Obama's base is disappointed in the bitter, snarky candidate he's become. And Ed Rollins had some really interesting thoughts about evangelical Christians who stayed home in 2008 but have somehow become energized this time.

So, because my handsome husband is in the nation's capital tonight, which makes our house a quiet, kind of boring place, I'll be watching election results all night. (Admission: I'll probably also be reading Voyager, because I love the Outlander books and am so close to the end.) I do anticipate that I'll go to bed without knowing. I have high hopes that it'll be resolved in the morning, but I also fear that we'll still be wondering in the week approaching Thanksgiving.

And, speaking of Thanksgiving, underneath all this angst is my dedication to  personal tradition of using the month of November to do a pulse check on life...to pause for a while to make a conscious effort to remember those things for which I'm thankful. While I'm not happy about the state of our union, and I'm not thankful for the nastiness of this campaign, which our President started the moment he won the last election, I will end this posting with my last status update on FaceBook today:

Nov 6: I am thankful to be living in the constitutional republic known as the United States of America, where I can cast a vote for whichever candidate I choose and have the freedom to express my opinions...which, as you know, are numerous. :-)

Taking the {Race} Bait

The closer we get to the election, the more desperate the Dems become. And desperate times deserve desperate measures. They're already preparing conspiracy stories about why they will be victims on election day. 

So, they pulled out an old standard--the race card they hold in their back pockets for just such a moment of desperation. We're hearing it from all directions, sometimes subtle, sometimes not.

We've all seen Joe Biden telling a predominantly black audience (in a faux Southern dialect) that Romney and Ryan were "gonna put y'all back in chains!"

And Michelle Obama cites the Emancipation Proclamation in a plea to blacks. The implication being exactly the same as the Biden statement--that if you don't vote for our candidate, you black folks will lose your constitutional rights.

Then there's Joseph Lowry takes it up a notch at a rally in Augusta, GA:

“If Obama was white, there would be no question on who was going to win,” Lowery said.

Let's be clear: slavery was awful. We're all glad that it's no longer part of our lives. And involuntary segregation was awful too. No one's suggesting that we return to either. I personally find any implication that such is the intent offensive.

So, why does it keep happening? Because, as my friends have heard me say ad nauseum: behavior that gets rewarded, gets repeated. Liberal leaders cast the bait, and they snag their audiences, hook, line and sinker. They know that regardless of how illogical it is or how intelligent the audience, it's hard not to get emotional about the topics of slavery and segregation.

Just as union leaders must encourage tension between labor and management, civil rights leaders must maintain racial tension to justify their existence. I can't remember the last time I heard a conservative encourage racial division. Think about it.

But from the left, it's a tried and true strategy. If all else fails, cry racism. No one will argue, because if they do, they're just proving that they're racist, right? With political correctness run amuck, you can't fight it, right?

Come on, people. Just as women should be smarter than to get sucked in by silly binders comments, surely you understand that people really don't like Obama's policies...just like they didn't like Jimmy Carter's policies. 

It's not the color of his skin; it's the content--or lack thereof--of his character.

Binders, Schminders

Sarcasm is the only other language for which I claim fluency, so I love the snarky humor of someecards. And I swear I saw a someecards version of this the other day, but I just can't find it. Please use your imagination.

It's funny. I get it. But I also have a problem with it. Just to get my point across, I'm going to break some rules of web formatting best practices. I beg your forgiveness in advance, but:

LADIES, WE'RE SMARTER THAN THIS!!!

Ah, that feels much better.

Once we quit thinking with that chip that some folks work so hard to keep on our shoulders and use the organ with which we were actually intended to think, it becomes clear that in his haste to get the point across uninterrupted, Mitt Romney meant to say something along the lines of "binders of women's resumes." Consequently, the point he was trying to make was that he was willing to bypass standard hiring practices in order to give one class of potential employees a fast path to people who fill positions.

So, I ask you, if you were looking for a job, how unhappy would "being in a binder" make you if that binder was being held by a corporate or government exec who was walking it straight to HR and/or hiring managers who would need to see it in order for their organization to put you in the hiring process?

Just sayin'...

Too Polite?

Again, I'm incredulous. (There's a lot of that lately.)

First of all, rumor has it that as he walked off the stage, Obama thought he'd bested Romney. Oh, the power of narcissism.

In a radio interview, Obama's newest excuse for his poor performance in the debate last week was, “I think it’s fair to say I was just too polite."

As I said in a posting last Thursday, it appeared to me that Obama was anything but polite. Petulant and disrespectful, not making eye contact with his opponent? Yes. Lame? Weak? Yes. Perhaps he confuses weakness with politeness? Oh, no, PrezBo...big mistake!

Mitt Romney proved on that same evening that you can be firm while also being polite. You can meet your opponent's gaze and still be a gentleman. 

Obama promises that he won't be so polite in the next two debates. Good. An angrier, snarkier Obama juxtaposed against a courteously confident Romney is exactly what I'd like to see.

In Neal Boortz's 9/13 program notes, Boortz laments that he can't remember an election where the less likeable candidate has won. One polling factor that has not (yet) wavered is Obama's lead over Romney in likeability. 

Obama needs us girls to win. Women don't like bullies. We like our leaders strong yet diplomatic. Go ahead, BHO, get nasty...and then see how the numbers go...with less and less time to recover. 

Tick tock...

Tolerance...or Not

I'm a huge fan of someecards.com. Here's one of my favorites:

Have you ever noticed that those on the left seems to think that they have a monopoly on tolerance? To the point that they are down-right condescending about it....looking down their noses if they suspect that you might be more conservative, which, of course, means that you're not as enlightened as they are.

So, what happened today when an African American actress decided to post a Tweet supporting Mitt Romney: 

Vote for Romney. The only choice for your future. @MittRomney @TeamRomney #mittromney #VOTE #voteromney

In spite of the fact that I'm staunchly Southern and somewhat conservative, I'm not a biggot. My liberal parents taught me tolerance, and the "N word" is not in my vocabulary. Therefore, I won't repeat any of the disgusting insults that were tweeted in reply, but they have been summarized at Twitchy.

And as I write this, the NBC Nightly News is discussing a story about an even more serious lack of tolerance. A 9th-grade girl in Pakistan was hunted down at her school and shot by the Taliban for daring to speak out for the rights of girls. So much for the peaceful religion...

I'm officially disgusted.

Best Explanation of Obamacare Yet

She's a doctor, a former nun, an army major. In one very long sentence, she explains Obamacare.

Take a look/listen...

Oh, What a Difference a Day--and a Debate--Makes!

I'll admit, I was a little concerned. You just never know how a live performance will go. Did I dare hope that Mitt Romney could turn in a stellar performance? Well, a girl  can hope. Did I ever dream that Obama would just phone it in? Never...even in my wildest dreams.

I sure wouldn't have wanted to be in the car with him afterwards...or having breakfast with him this morning. I'm sure he was angry. He sure seemed angry in his speeches today. (Really, PresBo? Romney doesn't want to be held accountable? If you want to be president, you owe the American people the truth? Really?)

Let's be honest...he's one of the most extreme narcissists we've ever seen in U.S. politics. You know that no one tells this emperor that he's naked! And of course, someone else must always be blamed. Eric Bolling was kind enough to give a rundown on The Five today:

• David Axelrod blames Jim Lehrer.
• Al Gore blames altitude.
• Michael Moore blames John Kerry's debate prep.

But in a surprise turn of events, Bill Maher--who has said some of the most obscene things against conservatives--tweeted it like it was...sometimes. Here are  some highlights:

• i can't believe i'm saying this, but Obama looks like he DOES need a teleprompter
• Obama made a lot of great points tonight. Unfortunately, most of them were for Romney
• Obama's not looking like he came for a job interview, Romney so far does
• Barry: less looking down making notes (u look like you're hanging your head in shame) and more eye contact. Look at Mitt like he's a nut!
• Postmortem even worse than debate! Now we know what Romney looks like fired up. And what Michael Jackson looked like on the diprovan

It's interesting to hear what people observed when watching the same event. To me, Obama seemed petulant, disrespectful, scripted (but he didn't memorize the lines right), angry and like a bit of a bully. Although there's an ad out today basically saying that Romney was mean, Obama was the one who ran roughshod over Jim Lehrer--ignoring time limits and instructions...and giving Jim dirty looks if he didn't get to speak when he wanted to.

Romney, on the other hand, looked extremely presidential. He was prepared, confident, engaging, enthusiastic, respectful, intelligent, witty, and while he was a consumate gentleman, he held his ground and would not tolerate lies about his position or be bullied out of his due share of time. And I loved his line about his 5 boys and being used to hearing people say things that aren't true, and continuing to say it, hoping he'd change his mind. It was a relief to have someone finally call Obama out on his "tell a lie, tell a big one and tell it often" tactics.

I was never really a Romney fan. I liked Newt Gingrich but knew he'd never make it with all his baggage. I'm warming up to Romney. The more I see him, the more hopeful I become. Fingers crossed.

The Great Uniter or the Big Divider?

So, born in Hawaii, raised anywhere but the South, where does the Southern black minister inflection come from as Obama makes a speech full of race baiting? The Daily Caller explores a video of Obama from 2007. Read about it and watch it here.

Before that, in 2002 it was the division of class warfare. Again, The Daily Caller posts the video of Obama speaking with anger and disdain of non-violence.

And then, there was the 1998 audio where Obama speaks about redistribution and discussing "the 'working poor' on welfare are a political voting bloc that can be harnessed."

So tell me, people, wasn't "hope and change" supposed to include racial healing? Why did anyone think that? Why did anyone assume that a man who tries to whip up so much anger toward whites and conservatives and pits the have nots against the haves could bring any of those groups together?

What Happens After November 6?

I'm chillin' in the mountains and a little bit removed from the 24-hour new cycle, but the emails never stop. I received this one this morning and had to share. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?feature=player_embedded&v=-Czo5Vf8KZs

Have a great weekend!

What Happens When Entitlements Can't Be Sustained

The more dependent we become on government entitlements, the more painful it will be when some politician finally grows large enough cojones to rein them in.

After years of overspending, Spain and Greece are being held accountable to reform by their fellow Eurozone countries.

I'm not going to ramble and rant about this; I'm just going to state the obvious:

This is our future if Obama manages to be successful in using entitlements to buy another term in the White House. 

Granted, Mitt Romney may not have a cool recipe for mirco-brewing beer. He's not even the guy you want to drink a beer with. He doesn't sing as well as Obama, and heaven help us, he'd probably also lose at basketball, golf or dancing. But those are not the skills I'm looking for. We need leadership. We need someone to show up, not just check in via iPad. And we need someone who will have the testicular fortitude to make the tough decisions to get our economy back in order.

The Year of Voting Dangerously

I'm both fascinated and disturbed at my perception of how voters are approaching this election. Most of the people I know, except for a handful, don't seem to have the time or then inclination to motivate themselves to think about the implication of this presidential decision.

Some are focusing on responsible, worthy and noble activities, such as thoughtfully and carefully raising their children. I certainly respect that, but I also contend that the single most important thing parents can do for their young ones is to do everything they can to ensure that our next president doesn't infringe upon their liberty while saddling them and future generations with unreasonable debt. But at least this is a concept I can understand.

What I don't understand are the people who can muster an obsession with American Idol, Dancing with the Stars, Saturday's Georgia Bulldog's game, some random city's housewives (my own personal mindless--no, truly mindless--entertainment) or, heaven forefend, the replacement NFL referees. The Packers should've won? WHO CARES????? Unless you bet the farm against the Seahawks, a questionable call probably won't really affect your life. The results of this presidential election certainly have the potential to change it greatly.

And then there are those who will vote, but for questionable reasons. First of all, just for grins (because you'll surely laugh to keep from crying) you may want to take a few minutes to review a recent Howard Stern "man on the street" segment. Remember, when you're thinking about sitting home because it's cold or rainy on election day, your vote counts, because these people can vote too. 

The most articulate woman on the tape says she just doesn't like Romney. And, as my favorite radio talk show host so eloquently put it: Likeable? Who Cares? We're Hiring a New CEO, Not Looking For a Friend. Do you remember in high school when kids campaigned for student council? And the winner was always someone who was the cutest (eye candy, anyone?) or most popular or who made crazy campaign promises like how they would regulate how teachers could test or give homework? Have we learned nothing since high school?

And speaking of pandering with promises, shall we make a list of a few of the things Obama has thrown out there clearly to curry favor during the campaign: 

• Female voters: birth control
• Jewish voters: signing the Israel military aid bill (just as Romney was headed over for a visit...something Obama hasn't done) and ramrodding Jeruselum as the capital of Israel back into the DNC platform after they busted for trying to pull it out.
• Hispanic voters: the executive order that he'd previously admitted he didn't have the authority to do.
• The gay/lesbian community: "Evolving" his views on same-sex marriage on a convenient time line.

And it doesn't stop with U.S. special-interest groups. Let us now forget his open mic promise to the Russians, telling Dmitry Medvedev, "Let me get reelected first, he said; then I’ll have a better chance of making something happen." 

If the idea of a hidden agenda with Putin or his pandering/appeasing approach to Muslim leaders doesn't scare you into voting for Romney, we have bigger concerns that one incompetent President's second term.

I Could EASILY Have Been Part of the 47%

I'm a second-generation single (divorced) mom. My mother and father divorced when I was in middle school. I divorced the father of my children when the girls were 4 and 2. If anyone was ever set up to wallow in victimhood and depend on entitlements, it should've been me.

But even though I was raised by uber-left, card-carrying liberals (you have no idea), I was raised that you are responsible for your own future, you can do anything as long as you're willing to work hard enough, and no, it's not the village's responsibility to raise a child.

When my parents divorced, my mom worked her butt off to support us. She had been a stay-at-home mom, had not yet finished a college degree and made ends meet as a clerk-then-manager of a convenience store, then a waitress-then-bartender at a bar in very touristy St. Augustine Beach. I spent a lot of nights home alone. I helped my mom roll tips. I read a lot of books. And yet, the lesson I learned was self-sufficiency.

I became an over-achiever. As a November baby, I started first grade at five years old. I was one of the younger kids in my class, so when I skipped my senior year, that meant I started college at 16. Of course, I quit at 17 when I met my first husband...and although my mom was convinced I would never finish, 5 attempts and 22 years later, I finally did. (Thanks for the challenge, Mom!)

When I divorced, I had started but not yet completed my college degree. I'd been in my full-time job that paid $6.25/hour for a year. I had the burden of a car payment, because the area I lived in didn't have mass transit.

I left my husband with the house and took only the bare minimum of furniture I needed for the children. We didn't even have a sofa until my grandmother gave me the old one she had in her basement. My mom had by that time moved to Arizona. I can't remember exactly where Daddy (oh, yes, I'm a Southern girl, so I can call my father Daddy, regardless of how old I am!) was at that time (Kentucky, Maryland...maybe Georgia?) but basically, I was on my own without much support.

It became clear to me almost immediately that most of the folks in my neighborhood of duplex apartments near "downtown" McDonough, GA had their housing subsidized. I didn't.

I probably could have qualified for WIC or food stamps, but it never occurred to me to apply.

I'm pretty sure I was so poor I could've gone back to school on a Pell Grant, but I didn't have the time or energy.

My child support barely covered childcare, but it was a priority for me to send my girls to a private kindergarten at the Stockbridge First Baptist Church where they learned to read from Beka Books at ages 2 and 3.

Yes, I did have a car payment, but my car of choice was a Subaru Justy (before the AWD), a stripped-down sub-compact that got great gas mileage, because my metro-Atlanta commute was 25ish miles each way. Sure, I probably could've qualified to buy a more expensive car, but my parents taught me better than that.

5 years after I got divorced, I bought a house. I was not part of the sub-prime lending debacle. Again, my housing was not subsidized. I only purchased a little starter house that I could afford, because my parents raised me to live within means. Keeping up with the Joneses was not in my repertoire. As Paul Ryan has said, he and Romney want "to bring growth and opportunity to society instead of this class warfare, instead of speaking to people like they're stuck in some class or station in life."

My station in life was something I felt like I could always improve upon...and I did.

I returned to school on my own dime several times, finally finishing at a private school, emerging with $38K in student loans and a grand sense of accomplishment.

I stuck with that $6.25/hour job and made good decisions...and advanced. I have a pension, a 401K, good healthcare and a good salary. My children both graduated from high school with honors. My youngest bought a house at 23 and is currently pursuing her masters degree.

Folks, it's not about a class or a color. It's not about a nuclear family, although that definitely helps. It's about the values my parents imparted to me and the education-oriented achievement culture in which I was raised. The government is not our panacea. I am proud to be Julie and not Obama's Julia...and tickled to be in the top 10% based on hard work and good decisions, because my parents always told me that it was possible instead of convincing me that I was a victim.

Campaigner-in-Chief

Doesn't it bother anyone else that our President doesn't have time to do the job we elected him to do?

Perhaps he has forgotten that he has a full-time job, since his previous experience with campaigning for President occurred while someone else was actually doing the work. (Well, actually, Obama should've been in the Senate, but if you look at his voting record, maybe he was shirking there too?)

But this time, when we have a crisis of foreign policy and Americans have been killed by extremists, perhaps it's time to DO YOUR JOB, Mr. President? 

You snub Benjamin Netanyahu, blowing off the Jobs Council and your security briefings, but you've got time for flights to Las Vegas, interviews with Pimp with a Limp, David Letterman and rubbing elbows with your celebrity friends Beyonce and Jaz-Z? It's probably important to meet with Morsi, as well, but to give the Muslim Brotherhood-backed Morsi preferential treatment over Netanyahu--when he's not even sure Egypt is even an ally, but we know that Israel is--seems a little odd.

And in related news, I'm still struggling with the fact that our embassies and consulates didn't have heightened security on 9/11. Rumor has it (from those who have been "over there") that the anniversary of 9/11 is a pretty big deal in the Islamic extremist communities.

Did Nero fiddle while Rome burned? Will Obama be showing off his rapping prowess when the next ambassador is being dragged* through the streets by Muslim zealots?


*Yeah, yeah, this sounds strange, but Grammar Girl assures me that drag is really not an irregular verb.

"You Want the Truth? You Can't Handle the Truth!!!"

That line from A Few Good Men was all I could think of when I was watching the line taken out of context from Mitt Romney's statement at a private fund-raiser.

“[M]y job is, is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.”

If you read the whole speech or see the entire video, it's clear that he's not talking about how he would represent citizens as President were he to be elected--as the mainstream media would have you believe--but that he's only referring to the goal of his campaign. Here's the larger context:

“There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it,” the former Massachusetts governor can be heard saying.

“That, that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what…These are people who pay no income tax,” he continued, adding “so our message of low taxes doesn’t connect.”

“[M]y job is, is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.”

As you can see, he's clearly talking about whom he can sway in terms of voting, and his point is a valid one...and his tone matter of fact and honest.

It's a tough political reality, and it's been summarized in this quote which may or may not be correctly attributed to Alexander Fraser Tytler, Professor of Universal History, and Greek and Roman Antiquities, in the University of Edinburgh in the late 18th and early 19th centuries:

"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship."

It's a frightening perspective on the future, which may be closer than we think.

The truth is, the Democrats are known for dangling entitlements. It may seem that Obama was just dealt a bad hand and has bungled with his policies. But has he? Or is it more strategic? With the above quote in mind, are the Dems encouraging more dependency on entitlements? Pandering to women and the elderly with promised healthcare handouts (really ladies, are you so silly that your votes can be bought with $10/month birth control pills?) and clearly targeting elderly minorities with radio ads for food stamps, because a 100% increase in food stamp usage since Obama took office is surely not large enough. Ask any cashier from any store that accepts them whether food stamps are abused. And what about free cell phones, to which you and I contribute every month when we pay our own cell phone bills? 

No, it's not pretty, but Romney's right. Obama's actively buying votes with entitlement programs, and those folks aren't likely to jump voluntarily off the fast-moving gravy train. Romney doesn't need to spend his campaign time and dollars there. Call it what you want, but I call it pragmatic. 

Move along, Mr. Romney, speak some common sense to independents who are still on the fence, and maintain your integrity by not back-peddling when liberals start flapping their hands in horror when you state the truth. I've seen you stick to your guns several times, and your stock has risen with me each time. Truth is still truth, even when those who are determined to edit tape selectively to spin a story against you become apoplectic when they hear it.

And as an added bonus, I'll share with you one of my favorite rants from Neal Boortz. If you have any questions about what poor really is in America, let's let The High Priest of the Church of the Painful Truth set you strait as he discusses "Hysteria Over The 'Risk' Of Being Poor."

Why This Blog?

When you're being selfish, you just have to own it. I'm sorry, if there's actually someone reading this and you're not me, I'm not writing this for you. Oh, you're welcome to be here, but this is a purely selfish undertaking.

I can't imagine that we'll have a more important or intense political season than the one we're currently in. There's not a day that goes by where I'm not tempted to post a political rant to my FaceBook account...but I don't want to rant on FaceBook. For me, FaceBook is about being social and keeping connected, and I don't want to be that person who gets unfriended because she's always posting political rants. I want to keep FaceBook for fun things, like random photos of family, friends and the occasional margarita.

Therefore, I'm carving out this little space in the interwebs to vent. I hope that sometimes my husband will read it. Maybe my kids and stepkids will read it. Since we're diametrically opposed, I'm pretty sure my parents won't read it, and I'm okay with that. Honestly, I'm okay if no one reads it. The likelihood that I could sway anyone politically is somewhere near non-existent, and that's not my goal.

My goal is pretty simple: to keep my other social media outlets political-rant free. And so it begins...