Rss

  • youtube
  • linkedin
  • google

Obama is betting on the ‘stupid’ vote

Posted by :DChristianMoore On : 15 February 2012
0

Category: The Quill

Tags:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Much has been made of the Obama coalition of upper middle class, college educated liberal white folks and poor minorities.  Other segments of American politics may support Obama to some degree but this is considered his “base”.  One segment of the American political landscape which has been overlooked in this analysis is the ‘stupid’ vote.  Maybe stupid is too strong a word, but it is defiantly an uninformed group that rarely if ever pays attention to politics and thus are easily swayed by emotional appeals, good imagery and media cues.  Think of it as the voter who doesn’t have time for the news because they want to catch up on American Idol but they heard Matt Damon said Obama was cool and Republicans want to kill teachers or something.

Don’t misunderstand and think I am calling the average American stupid or pulling a “What’s the matter with Kansas”.  However, as my video on this subject points out, elite liberals really do think most Americans are too dumb to know what is good for them.  The same impulse that causes liberals to want to tell you how to eat and dismiss the right as “bitter clingers”, causes them to view you and I as too stupid to understand all the wonderful things the left is trying to give us.  The right instinctively understands that paying for benefits with other people’s money is not sustainable but the left responds that we just don’t have the appropriate education and knowledge to understand their economics.

This is what is in Obama’s head when he decries lobbyists even as his administration is full of them.  He accuses Republicans of shilling for corporations as he practices crony capitalism, steering your tax money to corporate and political allies.  He makes a speech lamenting his inability to get a budget through Congress and blames Republicans when it is his own party who will not support his budget.   He promised premiums would not go up under Obamacare and stated the individual mandate was not a tax while his own advisors are saying the exact opposite.

All of these lies and hypocrisies are easily discoverable with a little research but Obama is betting you won’t do it.  He knows most of the media is on his side and he has the occupiers to fight against the Tea Party so what does it really cost him to lie a little?  Even the Washington Post gave Obama 4 Pinocchios on his tax cut claims and gave his chief of staff 4 Pinocchios for comments about getting a budget through Congress.  The sad reality is that Obama is less concerned about the truth than he is with his reelection narrative.  I suspect the whole reason he stepped into this contraception issue was to take the focus off of his own dismal record.

Obamacare remains deeply unpopular and his promise to half the deficit in three years has turned out to be bull.  He can’t run on his record so he has to obfuscate, divert and sling some mud at Republicans.  As politicians go this is par for the course, but wasn’t Obama suppose to be different?  His only hope is that you will not have the time or the inclination to do your own research and look up the facts for yourself.

Look, if you want an expansive welfare state, burdensome regulations and an overbearing nanny government and are cool with the sclerotic economic growth and loss of liberty that comes with it then by all means vote for Obama.  It will be the best vote for you.   However, if want something different, perhaps real hope and change, then do your own research and discover the truth behind the media spin on both sides.  Obama is betting his reelection on his belief that you won’t.  For America and for yourself, prove him wrong.

The left wants us to come together (when it helps them)

Posted by :DChristianMoore On : 7 February 2012
0

Category: Quickies

Tags:, , , ,

I have noticed over the last few years that liberals are very aggressive about pushing their agenda; even steamrolling Congress and the American public with respect to things like Obamacare.  That is of course until they start losing and then suddenly it is time to hold hands and “work together”.  A similar phenomenon is the tendency of the left to say vicious hateful things and then call for civility when the slightest criticism is lobbed in their direction.   Perhaps it’s hypocrisy or maybe they are simply oblivious but I really am curious as to why they always seem to get away with it.  They are like a bunch of Eddie Haskells.

Why are progressives and liberals always crying?

Posted by :DChristianMoore On : 25 January 2012
0

Category: LibertyBlog & Rants

Tags:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

After the State of the Union (SOTU) a friend of mine asked me if it was common practice to put folks in the chamber that would give the president an opportunity to tell a sob story.  I responded rather glibly that for the last few decades it looked to me as if lefty presidents generally bring people intended to make us feel bad about something; while righty presidents usually bring folks to encourage us to strive for the brass ring.  My friend responded that maybe liberals where just acting like “little girls whose pigtails just got pulled”.

I found the joke amusing but it got me thinking about how right and left view the United States.  When one sorts through all the rhetoric the right usually speaks of opportunity and an America where anyone can make it.  The left has a more depressing vision of America as a place where most are left behind.  The left’s vision is what Rush Limbaugh likes to call “soup line America”.

It’s not that the right doesn’t recognize that people are struggling, but the right wants to inspire them to go “all in” and work towards greater achievement.  The right wants you to look at the rich man or women and say “I am next”.  The left wants to tell you that your struggles will never end because the United States is fundamentally unfair and your only hope is to allow the left to take care of you.  The right sees potential millionaires, the left see victims.

This is what Obama was pushing in his SOTU address and what he has been selling for his entire career.  According to Saul Alinksy, who literally wrote the book (Rules for Radicals) on the subject,  the job of the community organizer is make people angry and envious so they will seek retribution through redistribution.  I submit that the eventual effect this worldview is a dependant class solely reliant on the beneficence of progressives for their daily bread, at least until they run out of other people’s money.  Let me put it another way: Freedom is scary and you can’t succeed anyway so give us control and we will give you food and shelter paid for by someone else.  In the Middle Ages that was called serfdom.

The left offers serfdom

Posted by :DChristianMoore On : 19 January 2012
0

Category: The Quill

Tags:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

When I was writing my update about the Obama administration killing the Keystone Pipeline, it occurred to me that Obama might just prefer that you not have a private sector job.  Obama keeps promising to focus on job creation, but then does everything he can to limit private sector opportunities.  More precisely, it is not private sector job creation Obama keeps blocking; it is jobs that do not rely on government handouts and stimulus. (Redundant?)  The Keystone Pipeline is just one egregious example as is the debacle with Boeing.  There is something fundamental about the left that causes them to oppose private sector job creation unless they can control it through “partnerships”.

Obama’s sees “creating jobs” as the purview of government through stimulus.  Leftists like Obama do not trust the freewheeling style of a private market.  Freedom is messy and difficult to control and leftists are not comfortable unless they are in control of outcomes.  Government control creates the illusion of being able to pick winners and losers and determine a better allocation of resources than that which would flow from the market.  This is an illusion because the market cannot long be controlled; government intervention always has the effect of suppressing market activity and interfering with market signals while reinforcing dependence and creating opportunities for corruption.

On some level the left understands this but they are willing to take the risk because control is more important to them than liberty.  Obama and the left  also understand all too well that that expanding the government workforce is a political loser, so they fall back on the same “third way” solutions that always herald the death of a free market. Creating more government agencies and hiring more bureaucrats is always controversial.  Instead government will “invest” in formally private companies and establish new public-private partnerships while claiming to look for a middle ground.  A good crises or emergent need will also always provide a good excuse to take over major sectors of the economy.  No matter the reason or excuse, the end result is always government interference, corruption, dependence and the gradual eroding of our precious liberties.

With stimulus spending for example, the left can pass out spoils to political cronies in the form of handouts and bailouts disguised as “jobs programs”.  To the left this is preferable to allowing the free market to create jobs.  Jobs in the free market are more difficult for government officials to leverage for effect.  People working on the pipeline project will not feel a sense of gratitude and obligation to Obama and the government.  Those in a government sponsored jobs program or unemployed collecting benefits are easier to continuously remind that they need Obama and big government policies in order to keep their daily bread.  All the while politicians can siphon off tax dollars to allies and cronies. That is what it’s all about.  Creating a dependence on government gives the politicians the power to control your lives while creating a class of voters willing to overlook corruption because they are desperate to keep their free stuff.

As a philosophical point I would ask what effect dependence on government will have on the American spirit and entrepreneurship.   It is something in the human psyche that the greater we sink into dependence on others, the less responsibility we will take for our own lives.  Think of your teenager who mentally seems to age 5 years just a few months after moving out of your house.  They may not have cleaned their rooms and taken out the trash at “home”, but once they move out they figure out fairly quickly the basics of maintaining a household.  Moving out may have been a little frightening, but it was also liberating to body, mind and spirit.

The same holds true when comparing government dependence to free market liberty.  Even Franklin Delano Roosevelt was concerned that dependence created through his New Deal programs would rob men of their drive and ambition.  Look at Europe; they are so accustomed to short work weeks, perpetual unemployment benefits and government handouts that they can’t give them up, even as their nations fall into decay.  People will eventually get to a point where the concept of competing and striving in a free competition of equals is too frightening to consider.  The safety of a false promise of womb to tomb security is simply too enticing.  People will eventually not even care if that free bowl of food comes with a very short leash.  This is what Obama is promising.  Is this the future we want for America?

Dr. King’s dream is the vision of the founding fathers

Posted by :DChristianMoore On : 16 January 2012
0

Category: LibertyLog TV

Tags:, , , , , , , , , ,

Dr. King’s dream is the founders’ vision and who are the real racists

Ancient philosophies of left and right

Posted by :DChristianMoore On : 9 January 2012
1

Category: The Quill

Tags:, , , , , , ,

I have always been enamored with philosophy and I have often attempted, sometimes successfully, to bring in philosophies which support my arguments.  This is important to me.  I can often see direct lines going from modern political debates to as far back as Plato and Aristotle.   When one understands that we are engaging in arguments and discussions that go back thousands of years, it provides an interesting and valuable perspective.  This is not to say the average person readily understands these competing philosophies.  Rather, they take their cues from elites who are echoing general principles rooted in ancient arguments.

Aristotle once wrote, and I am paraphrasing, that the problem in constitutions often rests not with the written document but with the people living under them.  Human nature will find a way to subvert and supersede the best documents and laws.  Because of this Aristotle placed his trust in collections of common folks, meeting and debating and discussing issues.  Aristotle had little time for self appointed experts.  He analyzes many different forms of government in Politics and eventually determines that collections of people chosen to represent the various factions of society from among the people and for a set period of time.  The purview of the government would be limited to only those things which were vitally important for society in order to prevent a dictator from rising to power and using the tools of that government to subvert the rights of the people (the polis).  In short, Aristotle could almost be called a paleo-libertarian and would approve of a representative republic as envisioned by James Madison or Samuel Adams.

Plato on the other hand placed his trust almost completely in experts.  One gets to the end of The Republic to find Plato recommending that smart folks be appointed as “guardians”.  The guardians are empowered to make decisions on behalf of everyone else and live as class apart until their deaths.  Plato is concerned about the passions of common folks, with their petty or provincial concerns, influencing the important decisions of the collective.  Plato advocates that children be taken from their families and raised by the state and the construction of a society where all citizens live and die for the good of the group as determined by the guardians.  Plato would find fellow travelers among the progressive of the extreme left who seek to empower educated elites to manage life for the rest of us.

Between ancient Greece and the modern United States stand a few thousand years of philosophical discussion, far too much to go into in this article.  Certain names do stand out however and not just the ones who have found their way into the popular culture.  The left can point to Karl Marx, but they can also point to Antonio Gramsci and Jean Jacque Rousseau.   Rousseau believed that man in the state of nature was friendly and communal.  It was the development of pride and greed and the competition for the attention of mates around the village square that caused the evils of society and forced the suppression of our better nature.  It is not hard to read Rousseau and determine that private property or competition is detrimental to our ability to live together in society.

Antonio Gramsci is a good example of the left operating under a philosopher’s guidance even if they are not aware of it.  Ever wonder why the left always seems to use media and entertainment to push their agenda?  They are channeling Gramsci who advised that governments, unless they resort to violence, can only do things within the boundaries of what the people will allow.  People will not accept collectivist schemes unless the institutions from which they take their cues have already tilled the cultural fields in their favor.  Winning power then will mean little unless you can win the culture.

Though Gramsci was jailed as a communist in his native Italy, his works became very influential among American leftists of his time.  They wrote extensively of the need for a “long march through the institutions”, taking over the fields of academia, entertainment, and journalism so they could use their influence to spread their agenda.  Look at the United States today and tell me if they succeeded.  The right may have been slow to the party but they too are now seeking to create new cultural norms based on their own media and entertainment venues; this why politics has infected everything these days.

I know where I stand.  I believe passionately in the capability of the people, empowered by their liberties, to manage their own lives.  I also do my best to read and understand the concepts and principles enshrined in our Constitution.  However, I also think it is important to understand from where the other side is coming.  Our politics has reached a point where we can no longer respectfully disagree.  We attack with hate and vitriol (hatriol). We do not just debate our opponents, we attempt to destroy them.  More and more as politics invades every aspect of American life I think we would do well to take a step back, attempt to understand each other and remember our common American(ness).  Understanding the philosophies and thought streams which led each side to their current worldviews would help us achieve this goal.  Ultimately, this would make our discussions more fruitful and our politics more worthy.

The lefty boner for compulsory voting

Posted by :DChristianMoore On : 5 January 2012
2

Category: LibertyBlog & Rants

Tags:, , , ,

Every few years the left gets a boner for compulsory voting.  When that happens the editorial pages and “thoughtful” journals begin extolling the virtues of a system where Election Day is an official holiday.  Business will be forced to close for the day and every citizen will be required to schlep to the polls and exercise the “right” to vote.  This love affair is usually rekindled after Democrats lose a big election, which provides some insight into true motivations.  Political scientists who study the issue generally agree that compulsory voting tends to favor liberal parties.

Last week, prompted by an article I had written about voter ID laws, I was having a discussion with a progressive friend of mine (yes I have some) about the issue.  During our discussion, my friend eventually fell back on the old arguments that voting should be mandatory and citizens who do not vote should be fined.  He brought up the usual tripe regarding low voter turnout and argued that if people were forced to vote, they would take a greater interest in how our republic was being managed.

To this I will say quite simply that forcing citizens to vote under penalty of fine or jail violates every principle upon which this country was founded.  You simply cannot force people to vote; voting is an exercise in political power and a right to be cherished, not a chore. Forcing people to vote will not make them more engaged or knowledgeable. People self select to vote for a reason and whatever drives them to vote is what motivates them. Why force sheep to the polls if they are uninterested?

The left likes to cloak their arguments in favor of compulsory voting in high minded ideals about participatory democracy.  In fact what this is really about is a belief, born out by studies, that people, who don’t pay attention to politics are easily swayed by emotional appeals, happy sounding buzzwords and promises of free stuff.  All of which the left has in spades.  Don’t misunderstand; both the left and the right are populated by people who have thought deeply about the specific issues that motivate them.  I am not saying people who vote left are uninformed, simply that uninformed people vote left.  More to the point, every dictatorship in the world holds elections with above 95% voter turnout in which the dictator received over 95% of the vote.  Hugo Chavez once received 98% of the vote.

Compulsory voting would turn our republic into as much of a sham as the worst banana republics in the world.   Some lament the large number of citizens who don’t seem to care much about politics and I am sympathetic to these concerns.  That said, I would rather have my representative chosen by those who choose to read up on the issues which motivate them and actively decide to go make their voice heard, then a group of automatons standing in line and pulling a random lever to avoid a fine.  If an American citizen decides things are not so bad as to require them to close their business, miss some time from work or spend some precious moments with their families in order to go to the polls, who are we to tell them those choices are not valid?

No more hyphenated Americans

Posted by :DChristianMoore On : 5 January 2012
3

Category: Immigration, Race, Social and Society, The Quill

Tags:, , , , , ,

As the New Year begins I am already beginning to dread the inevitable weeks, months and events we set aside throughout the year to honor whichever particular group happened to have enough political clout to lobby for one.  My thoughts turned to this topic when I read this week that Interior Secretary Ken Salazar was lobbying for a new national park celebrating Colorado’s Hispanic Heritage.  This is the part where the politically correct mind will begin regurgitating arguments in support multiculturalism.  I would rather take a moment to argue in support of our uniquely superb American ideals.

Multiculturalism is a belief that all cultures and worldviews are equally valid and should be celebrated.  I would argue that this is exactly the wrong attitude, and a cowardly one.  Take an honest look at human history and tell me that all ways of thinking are morally equivalent.  I submit that you cannot.  From government to academia our institutions should be supporting one primary narrative.  That narrative is that the United States is great because this is the place where you can cast off the hatreds and divisions of the old world and joins us in creating the new one.

The United States has historically and rightly viewed itself as a melting pot.  We are all aware of the imagery and sort of understand the reasons but I doubt few of us really get how truly powerful and important that concept is.   There is no American religion or race.  There is no creed or color or ancient history which defines America.  America was founded as an idea and it is from this idea that we draw our strength as country and a people.  It is an idea rooted in the principles of our founding and it makes us exceptional.  English and Irish, Germans and free Blacks, along with others, were all part of our original founding.  The visionaries who gathered to create our country conceived of a nation based not on blood ties and genetics, but on a commitment to principles of liberty, private property and individual rights.  It was not just about removing a king; it was about changing the nature of the human experience.

We have often failed to live up to our principles, as all people do.  What sets us apart is that we always find our way back to them.  Throughout our history, Italians, Chinese, Eastern European Jews, and many other ethnicities took their turn being the new wave of immigrants.  They all faced discrimination because fear of “the other” is rooted in the dark side of human nature.  This is how the story usually ends in every other part of the world but in The United States this is where the story begins.

I will use Italians as an example since that is the story of my own family.  When they first began arriving on our shores in large numbers – with swarthy complexions and oddly spelled food – Italians faced incredible discrimination and hatred.  Relegated to their own communities and barred from certain types of employment, Italians were routinely looked down upon by their fellow Americans.  Italians were lynched in New Orleans and the mainstream media of the day regularly attacked Italy for using America as a “dumping ground” for Italian criminals.  That seems unbelievable today because today Italians are just white people.

Every group can tell a similar story.  In the late eighteen hundreds, factories regularly posted “NINA” in their windows signifying “No Irish Need Apply”.    What makes America better is that here the story ends differently than it does anywhere else because America is different than anywhere else.  North Africans have never been able to become “French” the way anyone can become “American”.  Similarly, second and third generation Turks living in Germany remain keenly aware that they are not “Germans”.  This is not because of anything particular to France or Germany, but because of something so unique and special about America.  This is why we should always focus on the ideas and commitments that unite us instead of focusing on our divisions.  America is the place where the old divisions don’t matter.

This brings me back to my point about ethnic set-asides.  From the months and weeks “honoring” blacks or women or gays to special monuments dedicated to certain sub-divisions of hyphenated Americans such activity goes against what America stands for and hurts us far more than it benefits.  Humans are very good at identifying “the other” and segregating themselves.  Americans should be better than that.  Thomas Jefferson, Booker T. Washington and Caesar Chavez are not elements of White, Black and Hispanic history, they are figures in the story of our common American story.  This is the story we should be telling.

Can Blacks, Gays and Women be conservative, or are leftists the true bigots?

Posted by :DChristianMoore On : 19 August 2011
0

Category: Arts and Culture, Media, Race, The Quill

Tags:, , , , , , ,

Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain, a businessman from Georgia, talks to voters from the Des Moines Register's Soapbox during the second day of the Iowa State Fair August 12, 2011 in Des Moines, Iowa.

I raise that question because actress and comedian Jeanine Garafalo , in appearance on Countdown with Keith Olberman, recently said that republican presidential candidate Herman Cain must be either a sellout or suffering from Stockholm Syndrome.   Ms. Garafalo and Mr. Olberman are both committed leftists so it is not surprising they would attack Herman Cain.  What puzzled me was that they did not attack his ideas, they attacked his race.  Specifically, they assumed that because of his race he could not possibly believe the limited government philosophy he espouses on the campaign trail.

For the left to attack the right as being racists, sexists and homophobes is common; in fact it is practically an ad hominem attack repeated almost without thinking.  I sometimes find myself amused watching leftist commentators twist themselves into rhetorical contortions attempting to “read” racism or bigotry into any statement of right leaning philosophy.   It has gotten so bad recently that even left leaning comedian Jon Stewart called out MSNBC host Ed Schultz.  Schultz was attempting to portray Republican Presidential candidate Rick Perry as a racist because Perry referred to the national debt as a “black cloud” hanging over the nation.  Schultz suggested that the phrase “black cloud” was actually code for President Obama.

Because the left tends to see people as members of “groups” rather than individuals, it is impossible for the left to conceive of blacks, females, gays or members of any other “group” holding views antithetical to those which the left thinks they should hold.  The leftist worldview is based on a white male “oppressor” and a series of oppressed groups.  This is also why the left sees everything as a struggle for “rights” for particular “groups”, and why the left so vociferously attacks those whom they perceive as “traitors” to their group.

Rooted in Marxist orthodoxy regarding “class consciousness”, the left views anyone on the right who is not a white male, as no better than the Jewish Ghetto Police in Nazi occupied Europe.  The left sees no distinction between small government conservatives, libertarians or the religious right.  To the left there is one vast right wing conspiracy with a goal of maintaining some perceived “white privilege.  This is why attacks on conservative women such as Michelle Malkin, or conservative blacks like Clarence Thomas, or GOProud, the organization of conservative gays, are so malicious.

Ironically it often seems that the left are themselves the ones consumed with racism and sexism.  By denying the possibility of independent thought on the parts of blacks, gays and females, the left refuses to see them as individual Americans with their own thoughts, beliefs and desires.  It was Martin Luther King himself who stated he wanted an America where people are judged by the “content of their character”, not the color of their skin.  Despite their rhetoric, it is the left which seems incapable of doing this.

Left’s authoritarian impulse on display

Posted by :DChristianMoore On : 9 August 2011
0

Category: The Quill

Tags:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

U.S. President Barack Obama pauses as he makes a statement at the State Dining Room of the White House August 8, 2011 in Washington, DC. Obama spoke on the economy and the S&P downgrade

At this point it is impossible to predict what affect the credit downgrade by S&P will have on the U.S. economy.  Essentially this is because S&P is just confirming what most already know and understand, the U.S. is spending far too much money and the deficits will be unsustainable long term.  Moody’s has also warned that it too may consider a downgrade of the nation’s credit rating in the coming months.  Moody’s was clear before the debt ceiling deal that bigger spending cuts were needed to achieve meaningful deficit reduction.

Obama has instead issued a call for even more government spending because he continues to cling to the old Keynesian belief that government spending “stimulates” the economy.  It seems clear now that the monetarists are correct that deficit spending crowds out private sector investment, raises the cost of borrowing and risks debasing the currency and triggering inflation.  To be fair, it is not “spending” in and of itself that is bad; we all recognize the need for responsible spending and essential services.  That being said, there is a difference between investing in highways, transportation infrastructure or energy producing dams on the one hand and “cash for clunkers”, bailouts and tax breaks for favored industries that add no marginal value to the economy on the other.

The president has yet to acknowledge this and it appears as if Obama thinks he has all the answers and the only problem is that everyone else doesn’t just do whatever he says.  He admonishes the electorate for not living the way he wants or eating the way he wants and he admonishes markets for not acting the way he wants.  Today, White House spokesman Jay Carney lamented that the administration did not control “all the levers of government”.  Not to be outdone, lefty propagandist Michael Moore called for the heads of S&P to be arrested and Senator John Kerry, D-MA, has suggested the Tea Party be barred from public discourse.

This is the part that bothers me the most.  We are all aware that economists of different schools can disagree about the effects of different policies.  We expect this and it is the job of our elected officials to convince why a Keynes or Friedman or Hayek offer the solutions that best fit our current problems.  This, along with partisan bickering is a sign of a healthy republic.  It appears the president and many on the left have decided that this is too burdensome and difficult.  Rather, they are intimating more and more that the problem is the existence of a principled opposition; that the economy would be fine if only Obama had the power to just do whatever he wanted.   There is even word that the Democrat controlled Senate Banking committee is considering an investigation of S&P.  Would they really engage in such naked political bullying?  I think they would.

The new narrative from the administration appears to be blaming the messenger and call for “political prosecutions” to silence the opposition.  I do not think the president will do what is required to right the ship of our economy because he is too stubborn to accept that his ideology might be anything less than perfect.  We saw this in the debt ceiling debate where Obama would offer no detailed plan and then attack the Republicans as obstructionists for offering a plan of their own.  At that time it became clear that Obama’s “problem” was the simple fact that Republicans wanted to have the debate.  It almost seemed that, according to the left, the right should have just given up their principles and done whatever Obama wanted because he is obviously right and so the opposition must be totally wrong.  This mentality tells me that Obama will continue to push policies that will be harmful for our economy.

As the election heats up, I suspect Obama will turn up the class warfare rhetoric and hope that anger and divisiveness will bring out his base.  In this environment I also expect business to sit on the sidelines and wait out the uncertainty.   Why would any business invest when it is impossible to plan for the erratic policies coming out of the Washington?  The day Obama pushed through the auto bailout and stiffed the bondholders so he could give chunks of GM to his UAW allies, he destroyed any confidence in the business community that his was an administration that would respect the rule of law.  Expect the economy to remain stagnate while the old “post partisan” Obama is replaced by a demagogue, rallying his “street fighters” to pressure the opposition into submission.  2012 is going to be an interesting year and I am not sure what the United States will look like after the election, regardless of who wins.

Switch to our mobile site