A Black Friday Gift

As I torch a celebratory cigar on my back patio in the Northern California rain, I am reminded of an old Irish blessing: 

"May your glass be ever full

May the roof over your head be always strong

And may you be in Heaven

Half an hour before the Devil knows your dead"

Well, Fidel Castro was not Irish, so "no soup for him!"

"A quote from Huber Matos, who had fought alongside Fidel Castro in the Sierra Maestra: ”I differed from Fidel Castro because the original objective of our revolution was ‘Freedom or Death.’ Once Castro had power, he began to kill freedom.”

Matos spent 20 years in prison for voicing these concerns.

For the Gen X’ers, Millennials and beyond, I hope that you take note of the Cuban-American celebration in Miami and elsewhere in response to the death of Fidel Castro.  These are the people with first hand knowledge of a "Progressive" government.  Despite the failings of such governments, the marketing of socialist dictators as freedom fighters has been very successful to the point that we can find Black pop stars like Jay Z wearing the "Che Guevara" t-shirt even though Che was a documented racist.

Fidel Castro was a Communist killer (but I repeat myself), although he would argue, at times, that he was a Marxist.  In other words, he controlled everything in Cuba:  healthcare, education, food, energy, housing, speech, media, the internet, etc.  It was great for Castro, his family and those loyal to him, but it was a disaster for the Cuban people.  Total control is the Progressives wet dream.  So when you hear the term “Progressive” in this country, take note that in terms of individual freedom, it means “Regressive” for the people.  Please be sure to take note of the politicians and commentators in our country who speak or write glowingly of this monster or cut him slack for his crimes against humanity.  Think long and hard about whether or not you really should be aligned with them and their goals.  The Progressives in the USA have been indoctrinating students for generations and following it up with strong entertainment industry marketing.  In recent interviews at the University of Maryland, students who thought Barack Obama had been a successful President were asked to list his accomplishments.  The best answer they could produce was that Obama was "COOL".  That, folks, is the power of marketing.  No factual evidence of success, but he was a "real funny and cool cat".  Good grief, Charlie Brown!

Lastly, if you want to know how fantastically enjoyable it is to live under a big centralized Federal government, realize that it worked so well for the Cuban people that many were willing to jump on ramshackled rafts made up of old refrigerators, doors, scrap wood and inner tubes to risk crossing 90 miles of shark infested waters to escape it.  So much for safe spaces.  Open a book.  The history is all there to be read.

Castro is dead.  The world is a better place today.  I'm looking forward to the day when his brother, Raul, joins him.  Change is coming.

We Won't Get Fooled Again or Will We?

“Meet the new boss, same as the old boss” – Pete Townsend

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHhrZgojY1Q

Donald Trump was elected to be the 45^th President of the United States on November 8, 2016.  In the days since, there has been a complete melt down of Hillary Clinton supporters in both their personal lives and their public lives.  I promised myself in June 1994 that I would never be shocked by anything ever again after watching OJ flee across LA in the White Bronco.  This week came close.  It was truly a surreal feeling watching Trump march into the White House to meet with President Obama as has been standard protocol following an election.  I would not have been surprised if when he was asked to comment on the visit, Trump turned to Obama, pointed at him and said “You’re fired!”

For the curious voyeurs and schadenfreude enjoying Trump supporters, it has been a delicious week.  Witnessing people in their 50's, 40's, 30's and even 20's crying over spilt milk is entertaining, yet troubling.  I want to address those who are the meltees.  I am a Baby Boomer and have pretty much given up on Baby Boomer Progressives and older as it is just not worth the energy to try to open their closed minds at this point.  However, they cannot be completely ignored since they run the national media and have tremendous power with respect to how issues are framed.  My hope here is to reach the Gen X’s, Millennials, Gen Z’s and maybe even some Gen Alpha’s with this commentary.  My hope is that you realize there is still hope for you.

Why the intense fear of a President Donald J Trump?

Let’s get in the “way back” machine and travel to 2009 when the “TEA Party” became prominent in the news.  The Tea Party was a grass roots movement which mobilized specifically in response to the Federal government’s attempt to implement universal health care, but they were generally against the expansion of the Federal government which crawls into one’s personal space and then charges one for the privilege.  In hindsight, you will agree that they had legitimate concerns, yes?   Do you recall how the Tea Party members were portrayed in the media?  They were “stuck in the past”, “cranky old white people”, “wearing tri-corner hats”, “fearful of changing demographics” and “clutching their sacred copies of the Constitution”.

Why was mockery and disparagement aimed at this group?  They were portrayed as a bunch of old fools and the country would be better off the sooner they were dead.  Progressives wanted to speed up the clock on that one and be done with them.  That being said, the Tea Party PEACEFULLY protested as is allowed under that Constitution, but what were they trying to stop?  They were attempting to stop a Federal government from forcing them to act a certain way in their private lives.  In other words, they did not want their individual liberties infringed upon.  The Constitution was ratified after long deliberation among the States and two of the main concerns were:

1) the balance of power between the large populous States versus small populous States and

2) the risk of tyranny by a centralized, all too powerful Federal government

The “separation of powers” within the Federal government structure were designed to ensure that a tyrant could not come to power and rule over subjects – like a King.  So, by design, that old document written by slave holders prevents my choice for President from using coercive powers against you and your choice for President from using coercive powers against me.  In addition, it allows for change, but change is supposed to be deliberative and difficult such that changes are not made on a whim.  Any President proclaiming he/she “has a pen and is going to use it” to bypass an elected Congress is a danger to the country.

I expect and hope that Trump will use the pen to reverse the frequent times that Obama used the pen enacting rules via executive over reach.  After those reversals, I will oppose any such action because it is a danger to the USA for any President to wield this type of power.

So, why do people actively work to diminish the Constitution by pointing out that it was written by slaveholders and could not possibly foresee today’s technologies, etc?  It is because they want to Lord power over you and me.  They are not preaching freedom, but tyranny.  You will by health insurance even though you do not need it.  You will not smoke.  You will not say words which I find offensive.  You will not set your thermostat above 68 degrees.  You will not burn wood in your fireplace.  They are fascists.  So please, instead of learning history from the likes of “insert a celebrity here”, please do some research.  Read about the arguments among Jefferson, Adams, Madison, Hamilton, etc, etc.  Yes, some of them owned slaves, but that does not diminish their knowledge of human history and man’s desire for liberty.

The Constitution was designed to limit the powers of Donald J Trump just as it was designed to limit the powers of Barack H Obama.  Who is against that document?  Progressives!  Who wants to preserve that document? Conservatives!  This political battle is not about race, gender, etc as the Progressives would like to imply.  It is about liberty of the individual and tyranny by a government.  If anything is to be learned over the next 4 years, please understand that the Constitution is the individual’s friend – regardless of which side wins. 

Warning: The IRS May Be Hazardous To Your Health

The dialogue that follows is from a poignant moment during the 1981 comedy classic, "Arthur" where Linda (played by Liza Minelli) converses with Arthur's butler, Hobson (played by Sir John Gielgud).

Linda Marolla:  That sounds bad, have you seen a doctor?

Hobson:  Yes, and he has seen me.

Prior to this conversation, their relationship had been adversarial, but this brief interchange is a subtle personal moment where Hobson acknowledges that he is terminally ill.  How on Earth does this tie in with the IRS scandal?  Let's explore!

Looking at the current scandal, the worst case is that we have an administration reminiscent of Richard Nixon’s - trying to punish “enemies” via the power of the Federal government.  Some might make the argument that Barack Obama is the smartest man to ever assume the Presidency, yet he is unaware of the operations under the Executive Branch.  I'm not going to make that argument.  At a minimum, we have rogue bureaucrats singling out citizens for coercive treatment simply because they do not agree with the citizen’s political beliefs OR because the citizen’s political beliefs conflict with the bureaucrat’s and/or the Administration's beliefs.  For argument sake, we will accept that this scandal was carried out by rogue bureaucrats.

Regardless of party affiliation, using the IRS in this manner is an abuse of government power.  If  we know anything about the Founders, their desire was to limit the power of the government and they feared a government that oppressed the citizens.  After all, they had just fought a war against a King who treated them as subjects, not citizens.

Let’s move ahead into the future where bureaucrats will be deciding who gets medical care.  For example, say you are in need of a kidney transplant and a Conservative is in charge of the transplant list.  This specific Conservative checks into the political affiliation of everyone on the transplant list and moves all Republicans to the top of the list and all Democrats to the bottom of the list OR off the list completely.  We all can accept that this is WRONG.  It could happen vice versa where the bureaucrat is a Liberal and the potential kidney recipient is a Republican.  My point is not about who is the perpetrator and who is the victim of this dynamic, but about the existence of the dynamic.  Is this how we want our healthcare to work?  A sane person would want a doctor involved in this decision.  Well, the dynamic I just described is not a hypothetical.  A bureaucrat will be in charge courtesy of the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare) and that is just ONE of many reasons why it was opposed so vigorously.

For those who have not paid attention, the IRS is the enforcement mechanism for Obamacare.  I know, I know, we had to pass it so that we could see what was in it.  We now have overwhelming evidence of why IRS bureaucrats should not be in charge of medical decisions.  Keep in mind – the ACA was deliberately written this way, not by accident.  Makes one wonder why?

So, if Linda Marollo were to ask Hobson this question in 2014 and a bureaucrat sympathetic to the Occupy movement was responsible for his case, Hobson might respond,

"No, an IRS agent saw that I am a butler for a 1%'er and denied my request to see a specialist".

This scenario could play out differently where someone who may be highly religious could be reviewing the case of someone who lives a more hedonistic lifestyle and denies that person access to needed treatment.  I don't believe we want a system set up where this arrangement can be played out as it is bad for all US citizens.

Independent of political stripe, I believe we want Hobson to respond:

"Yes, and he (the doctor) has seen me".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4uTO30ONRbg

One Flew East, One Flew West...

An interesting way to differentiate great movies from good movies is to have events occur in real life which draw one back to a specific scene where a certain facial expression, hand gesture or wordplay rings the memory bell.  One of my favorite movie scenes is from One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest where the patients are attending a morning therapy session in which R.P McMurphy (played by Jack Nicholson) learns that most of the patients have not been committed to the asylum by the State, but are voluntary residents.

R.P. McMurphy:  "Cheswick, you're voluntary?
Cheswick:  (nods yes)
R.P. McMurphy:  "Scanlon?"
Scanlon:  (nods yes)
R.P. McMurphy:  "Billy, for Christ's sake, you must be committed, right?"
Billy:  "N-n-no".
R.P. McMurphy:  "You're just a young kid!  What are you doing here?  You ought to be out in a convertible bird-dogging chicks and banging beaver.  What are you doing here, for Christ's sake?  (laughter)  What's so funny about that?  Jesus, I mean, you guys do nothing but complain about how you can't...stand it in this place, and then you haven't got the guts to walk out?  What do you think you are, for Christ's sake, crazy or something?  Well, you're not.  You're not.  You're no crazier than the average asshole walking around on the streets.  And that's it.  Jesus Christ, I can't believe it!
Nurse Ratched:  Those are very challenging observations you made, Randall.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pc0_Xnvl3t4


This scene came to my mind as I learned of the terrorism attack at the Boston Marathon today.  Do I feel badly for the people who were injured, maimed or killed? Yes, very much so.  Was I surprised by the news?  No, not at all.  I'm not in denial about threats to our country. I know who and what we are up against.  When I first heard the news report out here on the West Coast, I expected the "normal" media exploitation of the victims and bystanders and the media did not disappoint because, after all, "if it bleeds, it leads".

I remember the coverage of the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake and how the media made it look like San Francisco burned to the ground and that the land was rubble. Yes, there was some real damage in the area, but most of what the country saw through their TVs were a few events which were shot from different camera angles and the requisite eyewitness stories.

The coverage today made me think of the people of Boston and I wondered if they really were as frazzled as the media made them appear.  You see, I grew up in the suburbs of Boston.  My town wasn't the wealthiest of suburbs, but it also was not a ghetto.  It was a typical blue collar town which I left in 1987.  The Boston I knew was Bobby Orr and the Big, Bad Bruins.  It was the J. Giels Band and Aerosmith.  It was Larry Bird and the Boston Celtics.  It was the curse of the Bambino and Bill Buckner. It was one corrupt Kennedy after another always riding the myth making machine only to eventually expose their true human characters.  It was before Michael Dukakis ran for President.  It was before the Big Dig.  It was before Whitey Bulger went on the lam.  It was before Ben Affleck and Matt Damon won Oscars.  Before the Tom Brady Superbowls.  Before the 2004 Red Sox embarrassed the Yankees. Before Chara hoisted the Cup. It was rough and tumble Boston.  If the people of Boston are still the way I remember them, they are not frazzled.

To the contrary, they are rightly pissed off, ready to kick ass and take numbers. However, my guess is that we have had a few generations who have been on the receiving end of Conflict Resolution 101 courtesy of our mommified education system.  Instead of being pissed, identifying the enemy and seeking to take them out, there's a good chance many will seek to understand WHY someone could hate us and our way of life and what WE can do to make our behavior more acceptable in order to prevent future attacks by our enemies.  This second approach will be championed by our feckless political leadership which will try to show command presence in the near term, but will do very little in the long term as they seek out conflict resolution on a global scale. Sophistry on parade!

How is this like Cuckoo's Nest?  Well, I definitely identify with McMurphy - incredulous that the people around him would self inflict their time in prison.  I feel our society is following this same model by shackling ourselves via political correctness and avoiding to state the obvious.  Evil exists and it always will.  We cannot ignore it.  We must deal with it.  Conflict resolution, political correctness and speech codes are driving societal passivity.  Nobody wants to get out of line and disappoint the dear leader.

Folks, we are in big trouble if we do not wake up, call the threat what it is, terrorism, and aggressively respond.  This is not an "overseas man-made disaster", it is terrorism.  The terrorists who are coming after us do not plan to stop if the US continues to show weakness with its responses.  Weakness to them is opportunity. Please realize that some day, the target will be Mickey Mouse.  The Boston I grew up in would, no doubt, go right to the source of the problem and "solve" it.  The current Boston leadership is a reflection of the electorate and if Bostonians sit by and watch the political leadership wash over this event like the administration washed over the Benghazi terror attack, then they are voluntarily committing themselves to the metaphorical asylum. I will then echo McMurphy:  "What do you think you are, for Christ's sake, crazy or something?"

Rolling Down Hill Like a Snowball Headed for Hell!

The title of this post is a borrowed quote from the great Merle Haggard.  The USA is bounding down such a hill and there is little to stop it given the lack of interest in history by a majority of our citizenry and the willingness of our media to put self interest and self survival above the health of the nation.  The economy was bad in 2008 - no argument there.  However,the problems were exacerbated in 2009 and continue at dismal levels to this day.  The price to "achieve" this level of short term failure was a guarantee of the long term financial collapse of our capitalist system.  I come to this solemn conclusion after 4+ years of hearing platitudes and fabrications emanating from the executive branch in Washington, DC and the collaboration of nearly all of the media in propping up fiction and ignoring reality.  The willingness of our electorate to accept ignorance of history and economics and channel their energy towards a depraved pop culture has allowed for their exploitation.

We are in trouble.   President Obama is a disciple of Saul Alinsky and this is not a secret.  The media is fully aware of Alinsky political tactics and fully aware that the President's team employs them, yet the media coverage of the President intentionally ignores these tactics.  So, we cannot rely on the media to help in the education of our citizens, but we need to take the initiative to inform the people around us who have been far too busy entertaining themselves to death.  Let's see if we can describe one of the more recent prevarications touted by President Obama and then provide an example which, hopefully, everyday men and women can digest.

Recently, during the State of the Union, the President claimed that he had cut the deficit by $2.5 Trillion dollars and was on his way to cutting the deficit by $4 Trillion.

To that claim, I call "Bullshit"!!

To clarify, the surplus/deficit is a measurement of the annual budget, whereas the Debt is cumulative, ie adding together each year's surplus/deficit.  Surplus occurs when Revenues to the Treasury (taxes & fees, etc) are greater than government outlays, ie Spending.  Deficit means the opposite - spending exceeds revenue.  Let's look at the deficits since 2008:


2008 $    487B  (GWBush)
2009 $ 1.484T delta +$997B (BObama)
2010 $ 1.344T delta  -$140B (BObama)
2011 $ 1.322T delta  -$  22B (BObama)
2012 $ 1.128T delta  -$194B (BObama)

These numbers are from the Office of Management & Budget (OMB) and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) from Aug 2012 and have probably been adjusted slightly, but will NEVER make Obama's claims close to the truth.  The 2008 number means that the Fed Government spent $487B more than it collected and/or earned.  There are different tricks which President Obama employs in order to deceive our willfully ignorant public.  The first sleight of hand is that he ignores his first year in office (2009) which is where the real damage (the STIMULUS) was perpetrated.  For a moment, let's accept his premise.  Even if I went with this flawed 3 year window analysis, the deficit would only be reduced by $356B from 2010-2012, not $2.5T.  So, the $2.5T claim is pure fiction.  In addition, Obama is ignoring his initial budget buster when he implemented the $1T stimulus, hence the increase in the deficit of $997B.  Looking at all 4 years, the deficit has grown under Obama by $641B, so his claim is off by $3T.  Only a compliant media would refuse to report on this outright lie.

Exploring this a little further, we get to the crux of the charade being played by Democrats in Washington, DC where our Debt has grown by more than $5T since Obama became President.  The reason the Senate refuses to pass a budget is because it allows them to spend $1T stimulus over and over without having to explain it each and every year.  This is done by operating under Continuing Resolutions (CRs).

It’s not an accident.  It's not late.  It's not uncertainty.  IT IS INTENTIONAL.

By not passing a budget in the Senate, the stimulus is included in the annual baseline.  President Obama can claim, with some legitimacy, that government is growing at its slowest rate in history.  It completely misrepresents his stewardship of the budget since he doubled the size of government spending in his first year.  We have had the $1T stimulus called out only once in 2009, but $4T in stimulus has been added in total because CR's continue spending at the previous year's level plus a small %.  Another $1T stimulus is being added as I write this post, with $3T more to come during the 2nd term.

Let's try to find an analogy that every day Americans can understand.  Imagine, that in 2008, you and your family went on a modest vacation.  Wherever you are located in the country, you packed up the caravan and drove to the ocean, lake or mountains, etc, etc... for a week.  You paid for gas, rental, food and beverage.  Each year leading up to 2008, you had added a little benefit - maybe an upgraded room or suite or a fancy dinner.

In 2009, despite economic uncertainty, you once again went on the driving vacation for 7 days, but you also flew the family to Australia for 2 weeks, then to Europe for 10 days and another 10 days out at Fiji.

In 2010, you decided to cut back, so the driving vacation became a weekend, Australia was cut to 10 days, Europe and Fiji to 7 days each.

In 2011, you skipped the driving vacation, but still went to Australia for 10 days and Europe and Fiji for 7 days each again.

In 2012, you cut Australia to 7 days to match Europe and Fiji.

Technically, you could say that you have been reducing vacation expenses at historic rates since 2009.

You might still be spending 5 times as much as you did in 2008, but in Washington, DC speak, this is a cut because you are not still spending 6 times as much.

Just like the oxygen mask demonstrations prior to take-off, please put your mask on first and help others in need of help.  Please wake up and study the game and the do your best to help others to understand what is happening.  The country is going to collapse if we continue to elect liars, frauds and demagogues.  We know that we cannot depend on the media to expose them.  It really comes down to us.

As Merle asked:  "Are the good times really over for good?"

Oprah's Business Savvy and Political Folly

You can count me among the many shocked observers when I saw a headline today that proclaimed:

"Oprah confirms OWN layoffs necessary for 'long term' success".

Now, don't get me wrong - I have never been a customer of her very successful offerings, but I have always admired her as one of the greatest capitalists in the history of the United States and, to go further, even in the entire history of the world.

Here is a woman who emerged from a poor upbringing, both economic and socially, YET, she built a media empire on her keen business acumen as she figured out how to draw viewers to her programming and monetize it.  It is a true Horatio Alger story.  Anybody who does not admire her business success cannot be a believer in Free Market Capitalism.

Oprah is quoted in the story as stating:  "It is difficult to make tough business decisions that affect people’s lives but the economics of a start-up cable network just don’t work with the cost structure that was in place."  Like any CEO running a business, she understood the dynamics of the economic environment and made the tough decisions to ensure long term viability.

My shock derives from trying to reconcile her ability to navigate her personal business life and her undying support for Barack Obama.  One could say that her endorsement of Obama over Hillary Clinton in 2008 was the straw that broke Hillary's back and turned Oprah into the king maker.  Now, if Oprah understands that tightening the belt and restructuring is necessary when the economics call for it, how can she still support a person who continues to spend, spend, spend to try to improve his business - the United States economy.

If Oprah were to be consistent, she would have tripled her workforce, not cut it.  Barack Obama has already spent in 3 years, what George W Bush spent in 8 years, while his business has only worsened.  Let's be clear - this is not an endorsement of W's spending.  Meanwhile, Oprah continues to support the worst CEO to ever run the United States government.

Maybe the difference for Oprah is that she had no interest in pissing away her personal wealth, whereas, Obama is only pissing away our money, our children's money, our children's children's money and their children's money.  Am I really shocked?  Not really.  For wealthy liberals, the historic myth of Barack Obama trumps any sane and objective idea of accountability.

The rest of us can eat cake.  That is, until Michelle takes that away from us too!

"What Do We Do Now"?

As dismayed as I can be about much of the product that comes out of Hollywood, there are still classic movies which stand the test of time.  Today, we can focus on "The Candidate" from 1972 which starred Robert Redford and Peter Boyle.  After running a successful "against all odds" campaign for California Senate, the surprised winner, Bill McKay (Redford), turns to his campaign manager (Boyle) and utters the last line of the movie:

"What do we do now"?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=myEpap3TxVs

That dialogue was from 40 years ago and is a demonstration about how slick campaigning and imaging can elect a candidate who is not prepared for the next step:  governing.  There exists some difference between what McKay meant and how it applies to the empty suit currently residing in the White House, but we can draw some parallels.  Whereas, McKay was searching for a plan on how to govern going forward, President Obama has no intention of actually governing in 2012.  The President is focused upon the same thing he was focused upon in 2008 and since - winning a campaign.

The mounting evidence that Obama has been clueless about governing has accumulated over the past 3 years where GDP growth has been anemic, unemployment has been prolonged, deficits have grown by over one-third to $16T, Obamacare is now scored to cost twice as much as was initially promised by Democrats, the Energy department has pumped over $40B into alternative energy boondoggles where money is being kicked back to the DNC/"Obama 2012" and there has been no attempt to address the biggest issue facing the viability of the country:  long term entitlement reform.  No objective measurement has improved even though Obama has spent an additional $6T in taxpayer money.  His team has been trying the weak unproveable narrative that the country was saved from worse.  The message for 3 years has been to pass blame to his predecessor while giving speeches.  Unfortunately for The One, he needed the country to stay asleep at the switch for one more year, but his administration failed to run out the clock.

The Obama team is asking:  "What do we do now to win re-election"?  Their answer would make Richard Nixon proud - divide the people by whatever means necessary to try to win the vote:  50% +1.  Let's go down our list of boogeymen created by the Obama administration:  Wall Street, Big Banks, Millionaires (actually anyone above $350K), Big Oil, Car Company Bondholders, Insurance Companies, Working Class White Males, Married Christians, FoxNews, Catholics, Talk Radio, Military Personnel, The Tea Party and Conservative Women.  And this all comes from the guy who was depicted as the Great Uniter.

The most recent major issue about which the President is trying to appear to be doing something while twiddling his thumbs is Rising Gas Prices.  This is a subject about which candidate Obama was highly critical of his predecessor, but now seems to believe that a President really has limited impact.  Although the President tries to downplay his responsibility, he has proposed some great solutions:  inflate your tires, tune up your car and develop pools of algae into an energy source to name a few.  The importance of rising gas prices in that they amplify through the entire economy in the cost of goods which, in turn, stymies economic growth.  Gas prices are a weekly reminder at the pump of the economy going in the wrong direction as voters disposable income is sapped.  The President's lack of seriousness about the issue is driving his approval rating to new lows (41%).

Obama 2012 asks:  "What do we do now"?

The goal for the campaign is to change the subject from gas prices to anything else.  Magically, Sandra Fluke appeared on the scene to create a false narrative in front a false committee about how Republicans want to ban access to contraceptives.  For those of you who are not politically savvy, this charade was orchestrated by the White House and the DNC along with their willing accomplices in the media in order to trick single women into thinking that the GOP will regulate their sex lives should they gain power.  Think about the logical ridiculousness of that proposition.  I realize this sounds like a sci-fi plot, but the Democrat party has been successful in targeting this part of the electorate with such ploys in the past.  The Democrats know that if they lose this demo, they have no chance in November. Fortunately, for the country, the women in this country were not fooled this time.  Recent polling by the Democrat friendly NY Times/CBS organizations, show that this issue backfired.

When asked "Should Health Insurance plans for all Employers be required to cover the full cost of birth control for female employees or should they be allowed to opt out for religious or moral grounds"?, women approved by 40% and disapproved 51%.  When asked this same question about religious affiliated Employers, the numbers were even greater with an approval of 36% and disapproval of 57%.  Clearly, women do not want insurance mandates forced upon Employers.  Uh-oh!

So why did women respond this way?  If we look at the poll a little deeper, when asked which issues were most important in the coming election, the respondents answered:  Economy (26%), Jobs (25%), Politicians/Govt (6%) and Budget Deficit (5%).  That is 62% for those issues.  So where is the concern about contraception?  Abortion was at 1%, so contraception must have been part of the Other (17%) category.  Evidently, women, like men, are concerned about their economic futures, the economic futures of their families and the economic prospects for their children.

Although the main stream media is doing their very best to avoid showing the weakness of the Obama administration, the people out in the country are living this failure and they do not like it.  There is panic in the White House as they try to determine their next demographic target of which they are running low in supply.

Make no mistake about it, unless there is some fantastic event between now and election day, Obama will be a one term President.  He may still be popular in some blue states where he has worked his hardest to distribute goodies from the US Treasury, but the red and purple states are gearing up for an Anybody But Obama (ABO) election.  Come November 7th, President Obama can then turn to David Axelrod and ask:

"What do we do now"?

The answer will be to continue to blame George W Bush and begin the re-writing of history in the great Democrat tradition.

The great tragedy of his tenure is that the wealth of the middle class was destroyed and distributed.  The rich are still rich, more people are poor, the middle class has shrunk and the burden to pay for the sophistry of Barack Obama will fall to the next 3 or 4 generations.  Normally, I would say "mission accomplished", but he would have needed another term to completely collapse the economy.

Viewing it from a more nostalgic angle, you can say that you lived through the worst Presidency in the history of the US.

"What do we do now"?  Repeat after me, "ABO, ABO, ABO........"