The awakening

It's morning in America.
It’s morning in America.

“THE OBAMA ERA is over.” So opined one of the collectivist mouthpieces Tuesday night on the basement-rated Bolshevik television network called MSNBC.

I was somewhat surprised at the election results. I was not as optimistic as many on our — the clearer thinking — side of the political spectrum. I mean, after Barry was re-elected against all common sense in 2012, who would have thought the American voter would come to his senses? Not me.

Here’s my prediction for the two years left in Barry’s term: The Republicans will try to legislatively set the national ship back on a straight course … and Barry will veto it, repeatedly. Simultaneously, Barry (wonderfully dubbed “The Precious” by a wag on Breitbart News) will attempt to further his left-wing dreams by edict.

International visits to other nations by the president will mostly end.* What would be the point? There will be an exception to this. Queen Michelle and the little princesses will continue taxpayer-funded vacations.

And the Queen will still accept all invites to fawning talk shows and celebrity parties. However, I imagine those invitations will be coming far less often than before, don’t you?

Upshots: Hillary (Barry in panties) now has the proverbial ice cube’s chance in Hell of being the next president. The NDP* has some serious and rapid thinking to do.

This morning, Ben Carson, an actual black dude, officially changed his party affiliation from Independent to Republican. Obviously, he has a presidential campaign in mind. I hope so.

Carson quote: “I believe in reasonable sized government. I believe in personal responsibility. I believe in individual freedom. And I believe in creating an environment to let free markets grow our economy. And all of that is very consistent with being a Republican.”  Amen, brother.

I like Carson, but there will be other contenders to replace The Precious. Time will tell. For now, let us celebrate.

Oh yes, almost forgot, Mia Love will become the first black Republican woman in the House of Representatives. You see, contrary to what the NDP endlessly drills into your noggins, Republicans have nothing against blacks. We just prefer the sharp ones, those who are not race-baiters like Al Sharpton and Pastor Jeremiah Wright.**

* * * *

* Barry is off to Burma next week, a trip scheduled before the midterms. Pray that he stays.

* * The New Democratic Party, which has little in common with Harry Truman’s Democratic Party.

*** The radical pastor who Barry hastily and wisely swept under the rug in 2008.


49 thoughts on “The awakening

  1. Of course you and the others of your ilk will continue to blame Obama for EVERYTHING … even with your Republican majority. So what will change as a result of yesterday’s landslide? Nothing … absolutely nothing. The Republicans have no agenda other than opposing gay marriage, trying to tell women what to do with their bodies, making sure everyone keeps their guns, the 1% will getting richer and richer, and of course the tax breaks for their cronies will remain in place. The more things change the more they stay the same … blah, blah, blah…

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Oh, Charles, what’s to be done with you? One percenters? The War on Women? Even the NDP is giving up on these weary, losing themes. Did you see the YouTube clip of a campaign debate somewhere just a couple of weeks ago in which the woman Democratic candidate tossed the “war on women” silliness at her Republican opponent … and the audience burst out laughing and hooting at her? She squirmed.

      Plus, silly Sandra Fluke’s race went down in flames.

      As for what will change, we’ll have to wait and see.

      My ilk? My ilk is a great ilk. You can join our ilk if you wish. We are a rainbow.


        1. Charles: Sure, we have a Republican rainbow. We got your blacks, your Latinos, your whites, your men, your women, your poor folks, your rich folks. We span the horizon. We are very inclusive. We even have some gays, though I confess most are in that other rainbow, yours, on the far side of the hill. Not all though.

          I realize you’re down in the dumps today, feeling out of sorts, kinda grumpy, but the sun will rise tomorrow and you’ll feel better, and quite glad to be living in Mexico, as am I.


    2. Democrats have mischaracterized the “war on women.” It is actually a war on motherhood and the traditional roles of women, and a war on the family, and Democrats have waged this war for over 50 years. FYI, woman are not single issue voters – just ask Wendy Davis.

      What you don’t understand, Charlie, is that women care first and foremost about their families. Not, as you have been led to believe, about who pays for their birth control and access to abortions of convenience. Liberal men like abortion rights because it frees them from having to take responsibility for the babies they produce with a woman they never intended to marry. Nothing makes me madder than a man talking about “women’s bodies” as if they have some sort of proprietary rights to this information because of their political affiliation.

      I have two daughters, both professional women. One left her career as an attorney to educate and care for her children and the other has no children and is dedicated to her career. This is the kind of “choice” I want my daughters to have. It is you, Charlie, and your ilk, who have waged a war on motherhood, on children and the traditional relationships that protect them.

      As for gay marriage, most of us don’t really care one way or the other what sort of sex you practice. Just don’t insist, via coercion by the government, that we perform the “wedding” ceremony, grant you and your buddies special rights, or be forced to bake your damn wedding cakes.

      What will happen as a result of the Republican landslide? At least for now, we can fight your efforts to make our country into a dystopian nightmare.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Bonnie: I’ve been thinking about your reference to “damn wedding cakes.” I am sure many, including me, share that reaction. Though I recall only about two, perhaps three, cases in which gays sued bakeries to make them submit, it gained widespread national attention, of course, and I think it was a huge P.R. gaff on the part of the “gay community.” It certainly won them no friends.

        Suing bakeries run by devout Christians to force them to bake cakes for gay weddings is no different than suing Hasidic Jews to force them to eat pig, or suing Zoroastrians to force them to step on living beetles with their sandals. Perhaps it can be done, but it should not be done. And most people know that.


        1. There are more cases than just that, Felipe. Besides having to bake the cakes, and forcing florists to do their work, there are several municipalities that have enacted laws with penalties of arrest if the providers did not comply. Talk about forcing people to do something they didn’t want to do (kinda like having to buy insurance). In a few of those cases, the owners opted to close the doors to the businesses rather than succumb to the arm of the state. (I think it may have be in Oregon.)

          Liked by 1 person

        2. The problem with these so-called “devout Christians” is that they are rather fixated on what they believe to be the Bible’s proscription of same-sex relationships, though the Bible is rather vague on the topic. But all the VERY VERY CLEAR proscriptions against divorce (Jesus goes on about this repeatedly in the Gospels), women speaking in church (Paul’s letter to the Corinthians), women not having short hair or men having long hair (Paul’s letter to the Corinthians), and any number of other things that the Bible is VERY VERY clear on, they ignore. So many of us in the gay community feel that the Bible is just a convenient excuse to be homophobic and really has nothing to do with someone’s desire to literally follow God’s law to the letter.

          And any bakery that refused to bake a cake for, say, an African-American wedding, or an interracial wedding would likely be drummed out of town. Personally, I wouldn’t want to support a homophobic bakery, but if you are in business to serve the public, you really shouldn’t be picking and choosing your customers without some really sound basis for doing so. And mere bigotry isn’t a sound basis in my book.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. I think the problem is that gay people want to be liked and accepted so badly. But some people find their lifestyle disgusting. We have freedom of association, and if people want to avoid them, they should have to right to do so. Would you force a Jewish bakery to make a cake for the Nazi party with a swastika and “Arbeit Macht Frei” on it? Think about it.
            It is not just Christians that object to the lifestyle, some atheist and agnostics do also.


            1. Hi Robert,

              I’m not sure the gay community is so determined to be “liked.” I personally don’t care whether people like the gay community or not. I simply want the same rights as others, as a matter of uncontested course, and I want the simple human respect that I believe everyone deserves. Nothing I have written suggests in the slightest that I think people’s freedom of association in any way should be infringed. There are lots of lifestyles that I personally object to, but I don’t advocate that the people living them should be treated unequally before the law.

              Now the infringement of freedom of association situation is not clear-cut. Freedom of association was used as an argument to perpetuate segregation, however over the years the courts have found that that cannot stand before the law, and impinges unreasonably on the freedoms of certain groups. So, for example, private employers may not discriminate in hiring or employment on the basis of race or religion claiming that they are free to associate with whomever they want. The same legal reasoning should apply to gays, though in many places it still does not. So at present, the gay community suffers “special,” legally-sanctioned discrimination, but no “special rights.” In my view, and increasingly the view of the courts and legislatures, this is wrong and not supportable.

              And I find your drawing an equivalency between hate speech and the celebration of a union between two people who love each other to be curious at best. However, I do not support using the power of the state to force anyone to bake any cakes they don’t want to. Personally, I can’t get my head around why any gay person would want a homophobic bakery in any way involved in their wedding. But my point above was this. There are lots of Christians picking and choosing which parts of the Bible that they find a moral imperative. Personally, I find the fixation on gays to the exclusion of other biblical commandments to be curious at best, and likely hypocritical, as I pointed out above. There are many proscriptions in the bible that are FAR clearer than anything about homosexuality, and yet they are near-universally ignored in today’s society, divorce being the prime example of this. I also do not think that focusing in on a very small, vague and controversial part of the bible as the sole basis for public policy makes any sense whatsoever. And the courts are coming to the same conclusion.




      2. Hey Bonnie! What makes you think you know anything about Charles? You rather boldly state, It is you, Charlie, and your ilk, who have waged a war on motherhood, on children and the traditional relationships that protect them. Isn’t that rather presumptuous? And disrespectful to call him by a name other than that which he uses?

        And why should Republicans (or anyone, really) retain the so-called “right” to treat some people like second-class citizens due to their affectional preferences? Why is marriage a special right? Or, put another way, why should the state have a hand in deciding who is to be your marriage partner? How is that consistent with the idea of a free society? And maybe you can lay out what “special” rights you think the gay community is demanding. As a card-carrying member of that community, I only want the same rights and respect as anyone else.

        Sadly, I think you just confirmed some of Charles’ concerns about Republican rule.

        Liked by 1 person

          1. Diminutive of what? “Bonnie” or “Bonny” is a mostly Scottish word that means “beautiful.”

            Besides, if she wants to be called “Bon, ” she’ll sign on that way.

            Liked by 2 people

            1. Boy, Kim, you are 100 percent correct. I’m the one who should have thought a bit longer. The “ie” ending has the sound of a diminutive but, in this instance, it is not. Silly me.


      3. Initially I clicked the Like button, then had to unlike. Why? Well if you are interested it is because of the paragraph about gay marriage. I believe gays should be accorded a civil legal union, aka ‘marriage’ agreement that allows them the same legal rights as straight couples’. Whether a church recognizes the union is of no concern to me. I don’t think anyone should get ‘Special’ rights, not straights, not gays, not congress, not anyone, we should all have equality and equal rights. And well if you are a baker or pastry business and a gay couples orders a cake from you, bake the damn thing, take their money, and contribute it to whatever charity you are inclined to, they won’t care that it is gay money!

        Liked by 1 person

        1. “Separate, but equal” has been tried and found wanting because at the end of the day, “separate” is in fact not “equal.” You say you don’t want to grant gays special rights, and then go on to declare that gays should get a special right, “civil union.” Which is it? Special rights or equal rights? I just want the same rights as anyone else, and I think that the idea that the state should somehow have a hand in choosing who people marry is beyond pernicious.

          As I stated elsewhere on this page, marriage and the legally-enforceable rights thereunder are only granted by the state. I have no desire to force or coerce churches to bless any union that they disapprove of. Whatever they bless is fully their discretion, in my view.

          But I believe that marriage is a right that everyone has and deserves, and this will be a settled issue soon enough.


  2. Blaming Obama for everything, YEP, that is what should be done. The Demos taught everyone that everything was Bush’s fault, so I think it is just right to blame Obama. The Demos have had control and yet nothing got done also. In the big picture I can’t see much difference between either party other than the Demos lie about more stuff. But then again they have a master of deception and dishonesty from the “Change, Transparency, Affordable Health Care (which is becoming unaffordable) to Keep your Doctor, and the list goes on and on.

    The bigger issue is why the federal government is sticking their nose into marriage, healthcare and a myriad of other things that should be under control of local and state governments.

    And, as your friend Charles said, “The more things change, the more they stay the same.” The last six years have certainly proved that without a shadow of a doubt! Except the perception of the U.S. as a weak government because of all the sniveling and lack of any pebble of foreign policy.

    But, then again, what did anyone expect when you elect someone who has never had to make a nickel doing anything on his own, never worked for a business, never worked for schooling, had everything handed to him, had no experience other than he was a community organizer? WHF does a community organizer know about the real world? All he proved to know was how to fund-raise. In that, he was very good. Oh, and very good at hiding school transcripts, etc.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Tancho: What I think is that we can pretty much ignore Barry now. He’s out of the game. Though, from some stories I’ve read this morning, he doesn’t seem to get that, which explains his being mystified that most all Democrat candidates did not want him around during the campaigns.


  3. Perhaps our long national nightmare is about to end. Half the people in this country pay no income tax, yet they demand expensive social services. The other half are taxed beyond belief. The IRS has turned into a terrorist arm of the Democratic Party.

    I think we have arrived at Margaret Thatcher’s point of “no one else’s money to be taken.” There is cash out there, but it isn’t being invested due to an uncertain tax policy and a hostility to business. It is all abroad.

    The truly wealthy now live in the Middle East and the Far East. They are well beyond our ability to tax. Obama says that the private sector is doing all right. If one comes from a background of a community organizer and a part of society that lives off of the social welfare system, they might see things as being all right.

    Despite what Hillary says, businesses provide jobs. If a company cannot make a profit, they go out of business or get sold off to foreign interests. The company will still have the same name, and the product will be the same, but it will be made in China. There go the jobs.

    We need to reverse this. A nation cannot live on food stamps forever.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Señor Gill: I’m in the middle of a really enlightening book by Jon Rauch that touches a good bit on America’s grave problems, especially the power of lobbies and interest groups, something everybody complains about, but — it seems — few actually understand clearly.

      The title is Government’s End.


  4. I just hope you’ll get off the soapbox now. Politics seems to be the national sport for USanians, and I find it exceptionally boring, since it’s all controlled by big business, no matter who is in control.


    1. Kris: I mightily enjoy my soapbox, thank you. Politics is a big deal in the U.S., and in most every other nation too. A nation’s politics affects everyone’s life in a major way. And what happens in the U.S. has international repercussions. What happens in, say, Canada or Honduras matters primarily to Canucks and Hondurans. That’s not the case with the U.S.

      By your response, I can safely assume the election results were not to your liking.


      1. No, the results were pretty much what I expected, and for Canadian business, probably good, since the Keystone pipeline will go ahead now. I dislike the negative campaigning and the way that Canadian politicians are emulating the southern neighbours. What happens in the U.S. does affect Canada, and Canada is a larger player in international business, more so than most insular USanians realize, having established trading ties with China while the U.S. recognized Taiwan as the power base in Asia.

        I am just saying that I am tired of the name-calling and finger-pointing. Please get back to entertaining me.

        Liked by 2 people

        1. Kris: I was thinking about the Keystone pipeline earlier today and how it likely will get done now. That’s good. As for finger-pointing, I do finger-point. I never name-call unless you think words like Mohammedan, collectivist, Barry, etc., qualify. I don’t. I call them correct.

          As for entertaining, I always entertain myself here, and when others are entertained, that’s even better. But that’s out of my hands.


          1. Sorry, I wasn’t aiming that at you, it was a broad stroke. In general I agree, and we want the same result, peaceful lives and for people to make an effort to have good living conditions. Everybody should have the chance to better themselves, but those of us who put in the effort shouldn’t have to support the idle and lazy.

            My theory on defense is that if we blew up the places where weapons are made, the people using them would have to find another way to kill each other.

            Liked by 1 person

  5. The only thing worse than the Republicans winning is the Democrats winning.
    We need term limits for Congress.
    We need to put a stop to career criminals and politicians.


    1. Andrés: The Republicans’ winning is indeed better than the Democrats’ winning, which is another way to state your contention. I agree. There are pros and cons to term limits, but the pros likely outweigh the cons. And I would not equate all career politicians to career criminals, though there certainly are some elected officials who fall into that category. I, of course, think most — but not all — are members of the NDP.


  6. Frankly, rhetoric aside, the actual policy differences between the Rs and the Ds is minuscule, at best. Both parties do everything in their power to retain the corporatist, statist status quo.

    As for “smaller government” the Rs talk a good game, but the last time they had the reins, they massively increased spending, and put it all on the national credit card. Why does anyone think they will do otherwise in the future? Oh, sure, they might gut an environmental regulation or two. They might make it easier for schoolchildren to bring guns to school. But as for any actual reduction in the size of government? It ain’t gonna happen. You could put the entire Senate, House, and Presidency under R control, and the government would continue to grow, and the real problems would not get solved. You would only change the names on the cheques the Treasury writes.

    I’d also add that both parties do a magnificent job of keeping the discussion away from the real issues. So they distract us with abortion, gay marriage, guns, border security, quarantines, speed limits, etc, etc.

    So what are the real issues? We have a massive demographic problem that is going to bankrupt the country unless we raise the eligibility age for Social Security and Medicare to something like 75. Right? You can’t rack up the largest debt in history and then just stop working, keep consuming, and hope that the debt will magically somehow pay itself off. Unfortunately, no one, especially elderly white R voters are going to vote for the solution to this problem.

    We have a massive military presence around the world and spend more than the entire rest of the world on our military by a factor of about three. This is unsustainable and will also bankrupt the country as it has bankrupted the empires that came before us. Yes, we all want a “strong defense,” but no one’s willing to talk about how much is enough. Nor is anyone willing to talk about dollars spent per life saved. So we spend ourselves into oblivion. The R voter base isn’t going to want to fix this problem either.

    We have pathetic public education that perpetuates social inequality. Unfortunately, that means that many of the (relatively few) younger people we have aren’t well educated enough to produce enough economic output to solve problems #1 and #2.

    And we have a serious environmental problem in the form of global warming that must be addressed one way or other. Either cut carbon emissions to try to stop it, or start building dikes. This is going to be enormously expensive either way, but it’s not being addressed and we’re running out of time.

    The rest is just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. And the only thing you can really do is try to protect yourself because none of the elected chickenshit in either the R or D party is ever going to do even the most minor thing about solving these serious problems.

    And for those of you in Mexico collecting social security. Don’t forget. You’re part of the famous 47%.


    Kim G
    Boston, MA
    Where we’d really really like to see some progress on the big issues.


    1. Yes, we are part of the 47% , but one of the differences is that we paid into that fund for years. It was money earned by working either for someone or having a business. Owning a business, especially now, is not a cakewalk. If I factor in the days and weeks of working and not getting a paycheck or days off, while employees got paid (which was my choice), it’s often not the gold mine everyone thinks it is.

      My problem is with the able-bodied people who have grown accustomed to getting housing, food, clothes and, yes, even cell phones for free, not contributing to the tax system, and abusing the generosity of the American people. I would think it would be fair to be able to vote only while having gainful employment, or at least some way to regulate not being able to vote benefits for oneself unless they have deposited something into the system. At some point, the system has to be balanced and that is what the politicians both R & D refuse to do, because they will not get re-elected and lose their power.

      If they only were able to be there for sufficient time to fix things and not load on more “bridges to nowhere” then we might have a chance. Sounds good anyway.


      1. Hola Tancho!
        I totally respect that people who are receiving Social Security have paid into the system by working. However, though no fault of the recipients, the system was never designed to pay people out for decades and decades. So the result is that most Social Security recipients take out WAY more than they ever put in. The result? A generational land-grab where the older generations basically suck the financial life out of the younger generations. As I noted in my comment above, this needs to be addressed because it is in no way sustainable, nor fair.

        I think slackers are a problem, but sadly, I don’t think they are the biggest problem. Why “sadly?” Because if they were the biggest problem, it’d be relatively easy to fix. Prior to the 1990s bipartisan welfare reform, they were a big problem. Now it’s much less, IMHO. But what do you do about people who are too old to work? The sooner the retirement age problem is fixed, the better. But we’d better act soon, or the government will put itself into the position of telling 64 year-olds that they’ll need to work another ten years. Much better to tell them that while they’re still in their forties or younger.

        Thanks for your response. Saludos.


  7. Hey, Kim,
    I don’t like any man talking about “what a woman can do with her body,” which is Democrat code language for abortion, including late term, on demand, as you are well aware. Sometimes, for medical reasons, abortion may be the right decision, but that is between a woman and her doctor. It gives me the creeps for men to talk about what a woman should be able to do with her body.

    No one every said that gays should be treated like second class citizens, but I don’t want my beliefs to be relegated to second class status – or to be outlawed – either, which is what the gay community is insisting on (read the back of your card).

    I am for freedom. Period. His, yours and mine.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Free speech is a fundamental right in a free democracy. What options women actually choose are, of course, their own private decisions. I’m in Bill Clinton’s camp on abortion. It should be safe, legal, and rare. But your dislike of people talking about it is unfortunate because it seems to be discussed everywhere, all the time on both sides of the issue. And someone’s advocacy of the maximum range of choice for a woman to chose from doesn’t seem inherently offensive, and I’m sure Charles did not mean to give offense. I certainly don’t.

      As for gays being treated like second class citizens, there’s still a pretty active movement, mostly driven by Republicans to enshrine the gay community’s status as second-class citizens into law, a movement that has historically been pretty successful up until recently. Don’t you recall the wave of anti-gay-marriage ballot propositions that swept over the country in the early part of this century? If nothing else, this was a cheap political trick for Republicans to get out their base. And it has generated real and lasting harms to the gay community and its children, and its heirs. As a result, there has been a long, hard, and expensive effort by the gay community to slowly sweep away this legally-enshrined prejudice. And if you read my comment above, it has distracted everyone from focusing on the real problems.

      As for your own attitudes, I don’t presume to know anything more than what you have written. However, what you wrote above. Just don’t insist, via coercion by the government, that we perform the “wedding” ceremony, grant you and your buddies special rights, or be forced to bake your damn wedding cakes. sounds pretty homophobic to me. (“damn wedding cakes?” C’mon! If that comment were made in reference to blacks, Latinos, Jews, Asians, the physically handicapped, or any other protected group, it would be universally reviled. And rightly so.) While I believe that churches should be completely free to perform or not perform whatever wedding ceremonies they like, the legal force of marriage is a status conferred by the state (not by a church), and as such should be available to all regardless of choice of partner.

      As for the gay community advocating to have your beliefs outlawed, I would ask a simple question. What beliefs are those, and how exactly is the gay community advocating that they be outlawed?

      Because as far as I can tell, the only thing we want to outlaw is discrimination based solely on bigotry, something that has been outlawed for other groups of people in this country for a good, long time. This is not a special right. It is an ordinary, everyday right that everyone else enjoys already.



  8. The essence of conservatism is that everyone gets to make up their own minds on issues. Everyone gets to express their opinion. We don’t have to follow the party line and spout quotes from a little red book. Some people in the Republican Party care about some issues that the rest of us could care less about. Sexual orientation, abortion, gay marriage and a host of other non issues. That is their right. I couldn’t care less. I am sure there are Democrats that share the same feelings.

    The Republican Party is a huge tent; there is room for all. When Democrats say “the Republicans” stand on an issue, they are just pandering. We have a plethora of stands and ideas and somewhere in the sifting and winnowing we will come up with a solution.

    Liked by 1 person

  9. Wow…this has turned into quite a thread. Bonnie, I have no idea who you are or where you came from…and for that I consider myself very fortunate. I was preparing to respond to your post when I read a bit further down and saw that Kim had read my mind…so no need to repeat what he has stated so well. However, I do feel compelled to personally answer a couple of your ill-chosen statements: Nowhere in my post did I refer to a “war on women”…I happen to feel that the government has no business trying to legislate what people can or cannot do with their bodies. On the issue of abortion, I am pro-choice…it is none of my business what a woman chooses…it’s her body and her choice. As a self-ascribed Christian church lady I’m sure you disagree…but that is your right. You are also a major homophobe…by way of your statements you have scored a perfect 100%…congratulations!

    Gays have never asked for special rights…just equal rights…we want to be able to enjoy the SAME rights as everyone else…nothing special about that. After reading your statements regarding gay marriage I can only imagine how you must feel about gays being able to adopt children…I have met far too many self-proclaimed Christians of your “ilk”’ (ilk, by the way, is not a derogatory term…it merely means “type”) and I don’t need your acceptance or approval to live my life.

    Finally, I wish to thank Kim for speaking so eloquently for so many of us. My partner and I were married this past February 4 in Mexico City…a very simple civil ceremony that I never thought I would experience in my lifetime…and it was not easy getting there due to narrow-minded people such as yourself. (BTW, there was no cake involved…gay or straight.)

    P.S. My given name is Charles…only my closest friends and family call me Charlie…and thankfully you don’t belong in either of those categories.

    Liked by 1 person

  10. I don’t normally find myself quoting Sarah Palin, (and I pretty much disagree with her on many many things) but I think the below, which she posted on Facebook, and which I read in the Huffington Post (, adds to this discussion and is worth thinking about because I think it’s largely true.

    Thank you, wise voters! Tonight is a big victory for We the People! Credit is due to the victorious candidates. Your message to President Obama is undeniably received, though he’ll try to ignore it.

    Now, new Republican Congressional majority in the House and Senate, please realize that Americans were not necessarily voting FOR any party; they were voting AGAINST the continued dysfunction and corruption in D.C. We the People were saying, “enough is enough” to the scandals, crony capitalism, and utter lack of leadership in Washington. [emphasis added]

    The Democrats got mauled today, deservedly so. To prohibit that from happening to the GOP in 2016, it must learn the lesson from the last time Republicans held the Senate majority. This time they must not retreat, and it’s our responsibility to hold them accountable. Will they fight for reform that aligns with the limited government planks of the Republican platform, or will they return to the big government cronyism and status quo favored by the permanent political class? Will they drain the swamp or decide the D.C. cesspool is really just a jacuzzi they can’t wait to jump on into and shake us off?

    If GOP leadership returns to business as usual, then this majority will be short lived, for We the People say, “once bitten, twice shy.”

    So, establishment types, remember that you didn’t build this! This majority that swept you into power tonight is thanks to the rank and file commonsense conservative grassroots. That’s who built it. And they expect results. They deserve the best for America.

    Thank you, SarahPAC supporters. Congratulations, USA! God, please bless our future.

    – Sarah Palin


    1. When McCain nominated her for vice president in 2008, and continuing on through the campaign with her endless repetitions of the word maverick, I was not a fan. The left-wing media (a redundancy except for Fox) did repeated hit jobs on her, and I confess I swallowed some of them. I had my suspicions of Barry, but they had yet to be so drastically confirmed as they have been since. I considered not voting at all due to Palin being on the GOP ticket. I had never voted Republican in my life, but I detected the PC fanaticism and race-fixation in Barry (I mean, really, Jeremiah Wright!), something that has been confirmed since, so my first Republican vote loomed.

      I never got my absentee ballot in Mexico, so I did not vote at all.

      In the ensuing years, however, I have become a big fan of Palin. She’s a hoot. She’s hot. And she’s conservative. What’s not to like? She stumbled quite a bit when first appearing on the national stage, but she’s improved immensely in the years since. She located her sea legs.


Comments are closed.