Obama And The Left Finally Taking Aim At Our Second Amendment Right

Well, thank you very much, all of you second amendment supporters who voted for Obama and the other lefties in the Senate and House of Representatives. They have predictably seized on the recent killing of innocent school children in Connecticut to call for more federal gun control laws and further erosion of your second amendment rights. The liberal news media, of course, is singing in the chorus. In their minds it is always the availability of guns to the law-abiding citizens that is the blame. The Constitution, in their minds, is an old dusty document that has outlived its usefulness. Of course, they use their first amendment right to attack the second amendment, and I believe that when that right gets to problematic--I say "when" ironically, knowing that that time has long since arrived--they will suggest that it is time to curb that as well. 

I know that the argument is that, if there were no guns, there would be no gun victims. That is a useless and silly argument: It is impossible to get rid of all guns. It will always be necessary for our military and police forces to have guns. It is also impossible to get rid of all crazy or evil people.  The best thing is to provide deterrents at the schools, and I mean gun-toting deterrents, not just a locked door and a buzzer to let people in. Just as was the case at the movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, the Connecticut elementary school was a gun-free zone.  The shooter in Colorado chose the one theater near his home--not the closest--where "No Concealed Guns Allowed" signs were posted.  He obviously felt more able to carry out his crazy scheme to the fullest if he were confident that there would not be a concealed gun in the possession of a movie patron.  The same thing is evident in the Elementary school shootings. As crazy or evil as this guy was, he was obviously not stupid. He was confident that the children and teachers would not be able to defend themselves.

I have no problem with hiring retired police officers, military or trained and armed security officers to patrol our public and private schools.  My daughter is police officer at a state university. Every college or university I am aware of has their own police department.  But, the security at our schools should not be a federal affair.  Local control is sufficient.  Our federal government has already taken to much power unto itself. Obama and his socialist cronies would love nothing better than to take on just a little bit more--who am I kidding? They would like to take on all they can get.

We on the right can pull out statistics and research till it makes you on the Left's head spin like Linda Blair's in The Exorcist. The most gun-related mass murders have taken place where the gun laws have been the strictest, and overall gun crime is less where concealed-guns are allowed.  You scream and shout till your blue in the face--and most of you on the left do--that we have to do something about guns in the hands of criminals and crazy people, but the fact remains that Connecticut has some of the strictest gun laws in the country.

As important as the protection of our innocent children, is our protection of our constitutional right to bare arms.  The left has always argued that guns kill people and that we need to limit their ownership. Strict laws have been the norm in all communist and socialist countries in history. Our founders recognized that all law-abiding citizenry needed the right to bare arms, not to just protect their families and private property from foreign threats, but from domestic threats, including a government out of control. Criminals and crazy people could not care less about what gun laws our liberal-minded legislators or executive order-toting president might do to limit the gun ownership of the law-abiding. They will always get their weapons. The same day that the Connecticut elementary school shootings took place, a cray knife-wielding man cut up more than 20 children at a school in China. 

The point is that there will always have the evil and crazy among us eager to do harm to the innocent unprotected, and they will always find a way to do their evil and crazy deeds. The answer is not to disarm the righteous and sane among us, but to allow those among us, who are willing, to defend ourselves and those who cannot defend themselves from evil. More guns in the hands of good citizens prevent more crimes and atrocities. It happens every day.

By the way, the numbers of these types of mass shootings are down in recent years. The peak was reached in 1929. History is a wonderful thing.

Who Is A Big, Fat Liar? And, Who, Is A Big, Fat Idiot?

We often hear or use the terms "Big Fat Liar" or "Big, Fat Idiot", without really considering that the terms do not really make sense, if the point is to be clear and descriptive. For one, does being big or fat mean that you any more of a liar or an idiot than if you were little or skinny? Come to think of it, I have heard some use the phrase, "You are a little liar!" I do not think, however, that the meaning was the the person was suspected of lying a little bit. So I guess the big and fat descriptions refer to the greatness of the liar's lies or the abundance of the idiot's idiocy.


He may not actually be a 'Big Fat Liar', but Obama is at least a liar of a great magnitude. Most of the deceit, however, comes in the form of not telling the truth to the people he counts on to keep him in office: The voters in the middle of the political landscape, the ones he uses as his pawns, or as Comrade Lenin supposedly called them, "useful idiots". He tells them what they want to hear and then he discards them as he moves towards his goals. His success at this deception has, of course, been helped along by the media, who refuse to do their jobs. Obama got a lot of votes from people who are ignorant about what he has said in the past about his plans for his presidency. In 2008, while running for president the first time, in an interview for the San Fransisco Chronicle--no surprise that he would be truthful to that audience-Obama made some of the following statements about energy policy:

"The problem is can you get the American people to say this is really important and force their representative to do the right thing? That requires mobilizing citizenry. That requires them understanding what it is at stake, and climate change is a great example... When I was asked earlier about the issue of coal...under my plan of cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket...even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad, because I'm capping greenhouse gasses, coal power plants, natural gas...you name it...whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, they would have to retro-fit their operations. That would cost a lot of money...they would pass that money on to the consumers. If you can't persuade the American people that, yes, there is going to be some increases on electricity rates on the front end, but that over the long term, because of combinations of more efficient energy usage and changing light bulbs and more efficient appliances, but also technology improving how we can produce clean energy that the economy will benefit...I was the first to call for a 100 percent auction on the cap and trade system, which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gasses emitted would be charged to the polluter...That will create a market in which whatever technologies are out there that are being presented whatever power plants that are being built, that they would have to meet the rigors of the market and ratcheted down caps that are being place, imposed every year...It will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge amount of money for all the greenhouse gasses that's being emitted."

Now, if you are concerned about the rising cost of things in this economy and you were unaware of these energy policies--using government regulations to force people to spend more for their energy and to put companies out of business--and you voted for this guy, shame on you for being ignorant and shame on the media for not letting you know what his policies really were and are.

And the there is the farce that is Obamacare. It is hard to wrap your brain around this, because the numbers are continually changing. When this health care legislation was signed into law, it was estimated by the Congressional Budget Office to cost $940 billion for the following decade. Now, the Congressional Budget Office, working with actual numbers and not the crap numbers allowed them by the Obamacare proponents, projects the cost over the next ten years to be $1.76 trillion. A bit more than expected, wouldn't you say? In 2009, Obama said, "Now add it all up, and the plan I'm proposing will cost around $900 billion over ten years...less than we have spent on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and less than the tax cuts for the wealthiest few Americans that Congress passed at the beginning of the previous administration." A lot of people, including myself, knew it would be much more expensive than Obama and the Democrats claimed it would be--federal government programs are always much more expensive than they are promoted to be--but, many prefer to not think about the expense of things and go for the feel-good product. Too much candy will kill you, have you not heard? Critics called the numbers into question, but the media refused to high-light anything that might derail their boy's chances of a landmark presidential achievement. The news media largely loved FDR during his day and Obama is today's media's "FDR'. I might mention here that I was told by a pre-med student friend of mine that, after attending a university meeting for pre-med students about what to expect with Obamacare, that she and over a hundred fellow students, who had hoped to become physicians, decided that they would never be able to pay off the cost of their education under the coming regulations and dropped out of the pre-med program. I thought it would save us money--note, for the Obama fans, the sarcasm dripping.

Then there is the famous (not) statement that Obama made to ABC's Chuck Todd--it would be famous if the media would bring it up again--that "raising taxes on business in a recession would hurt the economy. You might gather from that statement that Obama really understands how economy works, but it really only shows that he says what he thinks will appeal to the voters at the moment, while quietly holding on to his socialist principles. FDR, though extremely wealthy himself, constantly railed against the "rich" to create in the minds of the target voters an 'us-against-them' mindset to insure their support. Obama has done similarly, especially this time around by demonizing Romney as a rich 'fat cat'.

Though he admitted in 2008 that raising taxes would hurt the economy, Obama also let slip in an interview with Charlie Gibson that he was primarily interested in social justice. In the interview, Gibson reminded him that though Obama said he wanted to go to the capital gains tax rates under Clinton of 28 percent, that Clinton had actually signed legislation lowering the rate to 20 percent and that Bush took it down to 15 percent and that in each instance revenues from this taxes increased, with the government taking in more money. He also pointed out that in the 80s when the taxes increased to 28 percent that revenues went down. Gibson then asked, "Why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?" Obama replied: "well Charlie, what I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for the purpose of fairness. We saw an article today which showed that the top 50 hedge fund managers made $29 billion last year -- $29 billion for 50 individuals. And part of what has happened is that those who are able to work the stock market and amass huge fortunes on capital gains are paying a lower tax rate than their secretaries. That's not fair."

I am so glad that Obama and the Democrats have a corner on the fairness market--for the benefit of you Obama fans, I am being sarcastic here. I am not sure they understand what the word "fair" even means. Does it not occur to Obama and his minion, including the slobbering news media, that reduced government revenue and slowing economies for the sake of 'fairness' in the socialist's mind is not being fair to everyone concerned. For the umptieth time, ECONOMIES ARE NOT STATIC, THEY ARE DYNAMIC! raising taxes will always stifle economic growth. When Obama says that asking the wealthiest among us to pay just a little bit more to help pay down the debt, he is playing his supporters like the fools they are.

This brings me to the "Big Fat Idiot" part. Clearly, if you have been paying attention--apparently around 52 percent of have not been, as of late--you understand that Obama and his knowing followers talk out of both sides of their mouths, depending on who might be listening, and knowing that the media will be silent and not bring up any embarrassing questions or mention any important statistics. Deception is rampant in the administration and the news media is uninterested. Anyone know any more about "Fast and Furious" or the "Benghazi Affair"? Let me say here that I totally expect economy to really tank again--it really has not started to recover anywhere outside of right-to-work states where Republican governors and Republican legislatures are in control. We are likely to hit depression lows, if the Obama administration gets its way. Unlike the FDR era, Republicans still have a say as to how much we tax and how much we spend. We have been told that the wealthy are the enemies of the poor and the middle class, no matter that the "wealthy" tend to be the major employers in the world. may of them actually work for their wealth and risk their wealth, when they can afford it, to create jobs for the rest and amount more wealth for themselves and other middle-class investors. Who has a 401K or other retirement program who does not depend on capital gains?

Clearly, we can see who the "Big, Fat (metaphorically speaking) Liar" is, though a really good argument can be made for the news media. Who then is a "Big, Fat Idiot"? Informed or uninformed, a slight majority put the Big Fat Liar in office again, so the answer is, I think, rather obvious. Sorry about the Big, Fat part. I do not mean to be insulting to big or fat people. I know a lot of big and/or fat people who voted for Romney too.

Having Cake and Not Be Able To Eat It At All.

Well, the unions killed the goose that laid the golden twinkie. The tasty Hostess Company will not return as it was.  Some have asked the question, "Was Hostess not too big to fail?" Apparently, the union bosses involved did not have as much influence with the White House as the auto worker union bosses did. Imagine, if you will, federal money being borrowed for bailing out Hostess, but thy feds telling bond owners to take a hike, firing the CEO and making the unions part-owners of the company and non-union suppliers left out in the cold.  That is what happened with Chrysler and General Motors.

As usual, union bosses screwed things up.  It is ludicrous, especially in this dreadful economy, to expect a company devoted to sweet snacks to survive without cutting their expenses. You would think that even a union thug was smart enough to see that striking against court-ordered restructuring of union benefits would leave Hostess with no other option but to cut their losses and sell off their assets. But it has been a long time since union bosses have been realistic about strengthening the workers' positions. Mainly, union bosses are trying to feather their own nests and currying political connections.

Mexico can make the products much cheaper and maybe just as tasty. Hopefully, other companies will buy the brands and they can continue the iconic brand of Hostess alive, perhaps in more business-friendly states. Most of us would prefer to have our tasty treats made in our own country, or even in our own states or towns, but unions are making it more and more difficult for people to have good jobs. Right-to-work states, for the most part, have more work and more jobs. Supply and demand is still the best control in any economy. If you build a company, workers will come. If you are a thriving company and want and need to keep good workers, you will naturally pay more and offer  more benefits than your competitor. If your product is wanted, you will prosper. If your product becomes less attractive to the consumer, you need to change your product or, perhaps, cut the cost of your product to make it more appealing. This is the simple reality of business in the free market place. However, when the unions enter the equation, reality is suspended for many. There is never an end of company money, as far as union bosses are concerned. The investors and management are always "fat cats" who are trying to live big on the backs of the workers. Have you looked at how big union bosses live? Have union members asked union bosses to cut back?

GM, as George Will recently noted, had become a health insurance company for its employees and twice as many retired employees, and which had to try to sell enough cars on the side to pay for all of the employee benefits. The only fix that would preserve the status quo for unions and their Democrat cronies was to have the big "Auto-Bailout". It was actually a union bail-out, but that is getting too technical . Hostess is doing the only practical and honest thing it can do, after filing bankruptcy several times since 2004, trying to keep the company and over 18,000 jobs afloat. I only wish General Motors had done the same thing. GM might have come back leaner and meaner and with products the country and the rest of the world want and can sell without government subsidies. Can you imagine a government subsidized twinkie? Michelle Obama might have a say in what goes into it. It would be like the Chevy Volt: nobody would want have one, let alone eat it.

The Man Who Knows Too Little

Who would have thought the spirit of Sargent Schultz, of Hogan's Heroes fame, would possess the body of our wonderful president--note the sarcasm dripping from that statement.  Our president, Barack Hussein Obama (umm, umm, umm), seemingly is unaware of anything that he should know. Just as he was unaware of  the gun-running operations of the Justice Department to Mexican drug cartels which resulted in the deaths of hundreds of Mexican citizens and one of our border agents, Obama has no idea what happened in Benghazi on September 11, 2012. It has been nearly two and a half months and when questioned about what happened and why, his response is, in essence, "I know Nothing!" To be honest, he does not actually put it that way. His usual response is actually an effort to sidestep the question with an irrelevant suggestion that he is offended that anyone would suggest that he would be politically motivated in any way. Or, he declares that "we are trying to get to the bottom of it" and "we will bring the perpetrators to justice".  His notions of actual justice being brought to bare would be laughable, if I thought for a moment that it was at all funny. 

We have a real problem with the Benghazi event. We are not being told why Stevens was in Benghazi, a hotbed of terrorist activity, on 9-11, after telling his superiors at the State department that he feared for his safety and requesting more security, with a light security team. Why was he meeting a Turkish official just hours before he was attacked and killed? Why? What did he do while 4 Americans were being murdered? What did the president know and when did he know it? Who was calling the shots?

We also have a real problem with the news media, who gets excited about an extra-marital affair by CIA head, David Petraeus, while they give the president a pass on the a fore mentioned questions. Granted, a FOX reporter dared ask a question, but the other news organizations have been silent. They are constantly protecting their Messiah--Obama is obviously the closest thing they have to deity in their lives--from any political harm. Any evenhanded observer would know that a Republican president would not be able to skate through such a debacle as Benghazi gate without an anal exam by the press. It is what the press is supposed to do. The fact that they choose not to, is a very serious problem for the nation. Ignorance may be bliss, as they say, but it is also the very road to destruction. Did I just coin a phrase? I hope so. When a political storm strikes a presidency, the press should not be providing a rain coat for him to keep from getting wet.  America, WE Have A Problem!

Did Your Vote Count?

The question must be asked. I wish I didn't have to be the one to ask it. But, since no one else will, it falls to me. Did Barack Obama actually, legitimately, fairly and legally win the election? My answer is an unequivocal no. It was not a free and fair election. In fact, if we as a nation don't acknowledge the reality of what I am saying, we may never have a free and fair election again in the future of this once-great nation. You can look it up, as they say, but here are some facts that may have eluded you:

The Obama campaign willingly accepted foreign campaign funds.  They were not obliged to accept it but they did. They accepted illegal campaign contributions in 2008 and got away with it, so why would they not expect to do so again. They favorite mantra of Obama is "Nobody told me anything about it!" He refused to identify donors of $200 or less, though most of the funds were supposedly small donations.

Did anyone other than my friends and family see the videos captured by James O'Keefe of the Project Veritas--remember him exposing the ACORN people trying to facilitate prostitution rings?--showing Democrats operatives willing and eager to help commit voter fraud by allowing people to cast numerous votes.

And again, as is the case when Democrats run the Defense Department, our service men and women were systematically denied the opportunity to have their votes count. If there was public service union for our members of the military, I suspect that they would be driven to the polls, given coffee and pastries and told who to vote for. But, the very people who fight to allow us the freedom of voting have to jump through unrealistic hoops to do the same.

Then there is the photo ID requirement. Democrats believe that photo ID requirements suppress the vote.They do, of course, but only illegal votes, which Democrats apparently need in very close elections. The same logic should be used in most everything where photo IDs are normally required. Photo IDs suppress illegal activities like writing bad checks, credit card theft, purchasing illegal substances, illegally driving a car, getting into the Democrat convention, etc. By coincidence, Obama won every state where open voting--no ID required--was the law. I mean seriously folks, there is absolutely no good argument for not requiring someone to provide proof of who they are before the perform their sacred American duty of casting a vote. That right to have your vote count one time and only one time should be protected. Yet even when governments try to provide photo IDs at little or no cost to the voter, Democrats are against it. The obvious answer is that it cuts down on their cheating options.

In Philadelphia, Republican poll inspectors were forcibly removed from voting sites where Obama was the winner of nearly 100% of the vote. In Ward 4, where a poll watcher was wearing an Obama shirt
, the vote was 9,955 for Obama and 55 for Romney. Really? In today's economy? 9,955 to 55?  Obama also won 44 Cleveland voting districts by 99.8%. In one Ohio county, Obama won with 108 percent of the registered voters. Then there are the numerous reports of voters trying to vote for Romney in an electronic voting booth but every time they pushed the button for Romney, Obama's name was marked. It never seemed to happen the other way around. Who knows how many people did not catch the "glitch"? Interestingly, Romney received 3 million fewer votes than McCain did in 2008 while Obam snared 10 million fewer votes than he did in 2008. But Obama the 4 most critical swing states by only 500,000 votes. It was also reported that about 5 million independents who voted for Obama in 2008 changed this time around and voted for Romney.  This would suggest that nearly 5.5 million Republican and Romney independent votes were either did not show up or their votes were not counted.
So I ask again, did Obam win? Yes. Did he actually, legitimately, fairly and legally win the election? If you think so, you are delusional. If you are a Democrat, Republican or Independent, and do not care, and think that the ends justify the means, you are killing this great country. Granted,voter fraud has been around since this country began. Fraud has determined the outcome of way too many elections in local, state, and federal levels, but we do not have to like it and we do not have to quietly accept it.

Yes, I Am Disgusted!

Well, what can I say? True to my word, I am disgusted by the election results (see my last blog). The news media, for the most part, has become the enemy of truth and the unofficial --it might be official, actually--PR arm of the Democrat party. I have literally grown to loathe them for their failure to live up to their responsibility. I have no hope that they will even give lip service to trying to get to the bottom of the Benghazi Cover Up. But I am even more disgusted by the idea that a small majority of the American electorate has finally arrived at the place where they want to vote themselves more free stuff rather than to vote themselves more freedom. Let there be no mistake about it: Free stuff is not free. You have to pay for it with your moral soul. In my mind, we have now officially joined the rest of the socialist world. The road back will likely be long and hard.

We have also reached a point where a small majority seems to have bought into affirmative action in political terms. In 2008, America elected its first "Black" president. America was anxious to do so. It would be a sign that racism had been overcome. To do so, they would elect a man whom they knew virtually nothing about. In 2012, America elected a man that had proved in 4 years that he was unqualified and unprepared to do the job. To elect him to a second term, they had to reject a man who had much better qualifications and a wonderful track record of success. It is obviously a case presidential affirmative action. Our small and silly majority felt it necessary to give Barack Hussein Obama a do-over, to see if he could do it better this time. The problem is that they still do not know who he is, because they have to be spoon-fed information, as they have become accustomed to in the necessities in life. Like a child who will not eat his broccoli though it is really nutritional and would help make him healthy, they refuse to be educated  about things which will make them smarter and wiser  Yes, I am disgusted!  I'm keeping this short so I can go cry!

FIVE THINGS THAT WILL DISGUST ME TO NO END ON ELECTION DAY

Here it is the Saturday before Tuesday's election day. If I am to believe the polls at this point, I would be disgusted. There are five things that come to mind that would thoroughly disgust me this Tuesday:

Firstly, I would be disgusted with the mainstream media. Never, in my sixty years, have I witnessed a betrayal of the American people by the news media so profound to try to keep a politician in office. As ignorant and self absorbed as the general public can be at times, I am convinced that, if you held our nose to a pile of crap, even the biggest navel contemplators among us would likely recognize the smell as CRAP! Unless, of course, our olfactory senses had been fried by cocaine addiction--I actually believe drug abuse can push you to the left, philosophically.  Almost two months ago on 9-11--anyone remember the significance of that date? I do and it should be understood that it has even more significance to our enemies who are crazy Muslims--our consulate in Benghazi was attacked by Al qaeda affiliates and four Americans, including the Ambassador to Libya, were murdered. Earlier in the day, as a number of embassies were being overrun and Muslim crazies protested an anti-Muslim video on the Internet, which none of them had seen, but only heard about, our embassies started sending out messages of apologies to the Muslim world for allowing such a nasty piece of work to be produced. Mitt Romney came out at this point and said that we should not be apologising for having free speech in America. The media attacked Romney for trying to make political hay so quickly. Though Romney was right, the  media hounded on this issue for several days, until it was apparent that it had not traction with the general public. Meanwhile, back at the ranch, murder and mayhem was taking place in Benghazi.  For over two weeks the Obama administration tried to cover up the fact that they had hung Ambassador Stevens out there in Libya without sufficient security, lying the the American people about a supposed demonstration against the infamous video gone awry. When extra security was asked for, the embassy was told to make do. We--I use the word "we" to include others beyond my self here--still do not know why Stevens was meeting with an official of Turkey a couple hours before he was murdered. It is obvious to even the most casual observer--maybe not Giraldo Rivera--that the cover up by the administration was devised to mislead America about what they were doing in Libya and to continue the hoax that Al qaeda was on the run.  Such information might not be good for the president's reelection.  As I have said before, Where is the curiosity of the left-leaning news media? Do they want Obama reelected so badly that they will refuse to do their job? They never needed a Democrat challenger to carry the water for them when the went after Nixon, Reagan or the Bushes. FOX NEWS is the only major news outlet that can be taken seriously. The rest should be doing their job too!

Secondly, I would be disgusted by anyone who might be moved in their convictions about Obama based on his TV appearances post Hurricane Sandy.  You want to tell me he is more presidential now that he has been seen hugging disaster victims?  Again, he came out and made attractive promises to those who suffer, without any real follow through.  Anybody really believe anything he says? He made a huge number of promises concerning jobs, the economy, health care, divisive politics and such that he was unable to deliver on. Oh, and there was the one about the oceans receding. If anyone sees him other than what he is, an ACORN community organizer (agitator) with the power of the White House to spend tax-payer money to create more dependence, they are the blind following the blind. He has never done anything beyond selling two autobiographies and getting himself elected to political office. He voted present almost exclusively as an Illinois senator, did nothing for four years as a United States Senator, and mucked up everything he has touched as president. He was unable to make any decisions for fear of hurting himself politically, including calling for the hit on Bin Laden without being pushed into it by Hilary Clinton. Now he looks presidential? He said yesterday that voting was the best revenge. Presidential? I like Romney's response: Vote for love of country.

Thirdly, I always have a hard time understanding how people can vote for a president because they want him to accomplish certain things and at the same time cast a vote for a person who will instinctively work against that president to the best of their ability. I have noticed in the polls of various states, such as Montana, Missouri and Indiana, that Romney is favored by the state electorate, but that the Democrat running for that state's senate seat is leading in the polls. How stupid are you to do that? I could understand it if the Republican was somehow a Satan-worshipping, child-molesting cretin, but these are candidates who will support Romney's agenda.  The great statesman, Harry Reid--boy was that hard to say, even in sarcastic jest--has proclaimed that as Senate majority leader he will try to disrupt Romney's every move. Do you want to keep that clown as the Senate Majority Leader? Heaven forbid! I mean, PLEASE, HEAVEN FORBID! Talk about shooting yourself in the foot. How about just shooting yourself in the head!

Fourthly, I would be disgusted if you have not made up your mind until you enter the voting booth. Polls tell us there are still some undecided voters out there. Really? What is wrong with you that you are unable to see what is going on around you. Are you as incapable of making a hard decisions--not that this at all a hard decision--as Obama has been most of his political career. Does it have to effect you personally? Do you not care more about the state of our country than you do about how your clueless friends will view you?

Fifthly, I would be disgusted if you as an American could not care less about this election. You have been given a gift! For whatever reason, you were born in the greatest country, with the most opportunity and freedom, that has ever existed in recorded history. This nation is special, because of unique constitution and the internal struggle we have gone through over the past couple centuries to make this an even greater country to live in. We are inadvertently, though I believe some are actively trying to lead us there, heading for destruction, as far as freedom and opportunity are concerned. Eventually the people who are asleep at the wheel will be jarred awake as our country veers completely off the road. We need a majority of careful and serious minds that comprehend our actual state. We need people to wake up and see where we are heading. For example, if we put our union concerns ahead of the good of the country without looking at repercussions, we are hiding our heads in the sand. We are ripe for destruction, it would seem. Maybe even over ripe. Do we smell rotting fruit or a clean breeze trying to reach us?

Please America, do not leave me disgusted! Vote for Romney and give him a congress who will help him get this country back on the road and heading in the right direction.