Jun
10
Painting Pro-Lifers With Broad Strokes
Filed Under Uncategorized | 7 Comments
Many readers will be familiar with the May 31st murder of Dr. George Tiller, an abortion provider in Kansas. However reprehensible this man’s method of earning a living was, it was no excuse for murder. Killing someone in cold blood in a house of God cannot under any stretch of the imagination be construed as ‘pro-life’. There is a difference between ‘pro-life’ and ‘anti-abortion’, a difference made distinctly evident by the thug that committed this heinous crime.
My fellow pro-lifers echoed this sentiment in the blogosphere and the traditional media. Save the exception of a few nuts, pro-lifers soundly repudiated the notion that assassination is the way to stop what we view as murder. The Other McCain rounded up both news updates and reaction from all over, including this reaction from The Sundries Shack (emphasis mine):
He was a reprehensible human being whose arrogance at coming within 100 feet of a house of worship is staggering.
However, that does not excuse his killer. The person who shot Tiller is a cold-blooded murderer and is every bit as monstrous a killer as Tiller himself. I don’t care how the killer rationalized his killing (I’m using the generic “him” here). He had no right to take Tiller’s life. He assumed the power of judgment that didn’t belong to him and he should pay for that very dearly. It wouldn’t sadden me at all if he were given the death sentence (assuming they have that in
MissouriKansas). I am very sorry for Tiller’s family and friends, who have lost someone they loved.
As definitive as the collective condemnation of the killing was from the pro-life community was, many feared that this action would be used to paint the entire pro-life movement as based on violence.
Enter my favorite (sarcasm) liberal radio program, which I affectionately call Communism Now! While covering the Tiller murder, host Amy Goodman interviewed another abortion provider, Dr. Warren Hern. From today’s transcript:
But I think that it’s—the glee expressed by the anti-abortion fanatics is just grotesque. It’s ghoulish. These people—this is a violent terrorist movement in this country, and the American people need to understand that there’s a great deal more at stake here than the activities of one doctor, of the services of one doctor. Of course, this is a great loss for women, but this means that we have a very highly organized, active, well-armed and well-funded terrorist movement in the country that opposes the basic premises of American society. These people are opposed to constitutional democracy. They’re opposed to the rule of law. They’re opposed to a democratic government, representative government. They’re opposed to basic personal freedom. They’re opposed to thought. And this is a tremendous step backwards.
Throughout the course of the interview, Hern does not distinguish between a fringe terrorist and the movement at large. Nor does host Amy Goodman press him to ask whether he sees a distinction or not.
Another gem from Dr. Hern:
You know, if they don’t like abortion, don’t have one. I mean, it’s just outrageous. This is a witch hunt atmosphere. This is an era of persecution. This is just intolerable.
If only the babies being murdered had the choice not to have one….
But back to the issue of the perception of pro-lifers (emphasis mine):
You know, the Mafia is a decent, upstanding, respectable civic organization compared to the anti-abortion movement in this country. The anti-abortion movement in this country is the face of fascism in America.
…
I have nothing—I have no time to talk to these people. They have been trying to get us killed for decades. Their statements that they’re dismayed about Dr. Tiller’s assassination is hypocritical nonsense. These people got exactly what they wanted. They wanted Dr. Tiller dead. They wanted Dr. Tiller’s clinic closed. And they want the rest of us killed. They have made that very clear. So when they make a statement about this—you know, they have gone around demonizing doctors, vilifying doctors, all of us, in the newspapers and speeches and bloody posters, you know, calling us murderers and baby killers and so forth.
And when all else fails, blame Bush (and the Republicans):
Ronald Reagan tried to make abortion a political crime against the state. And it was staggering. He was brought into office with the active and fervent support of anti-abortion fanatics. And the Republican Party has exploited that movement for thirty-five years to get power. And unfortunately, one of the incredibly terrible results of that was visited upon us, was the administration of George W. Bush, who was the emissary to the anti-abortion groups for his father, when he was president.
Just because a murderer commits his act under the pro-life banner does not mean that abortionists have the right to slander our cause unchallenged. Unfortunately, slander is par for the course for Communism Now! and many in the American left.
May
21
18-21 Year Olds: Smart Enough To Vote, Too Stupid For Credit Cards
Filed Under Economics | 2 Comments
This week the Senate passed legislation restricting credit card companies in their abilities to levy fees and raise interest rates. Intended to protect those who are harmed by such actions, the bill will only serve to punish responsible borrowers and restrict lending lower-income credit-card users. The companies will simply not take on the risk if not allowed to manage it economically.
There was another stipulation of the bill that puzzled me:
… the Senate bill requires those under 21 who seek a credit card to prove first that they can repay the money or that a parent or guardian is willing to pay off their debt if they default.
Essentially this is saying that people ages 18-21, while given the right to choose the Commander in Chief of the most powerful military in the world, are too stupid to read a credit card agreement. Such hypocricy is not uncommon on the left, who claim to be the voice of younger voters. Communism Now! interviewed Jesse Jackson about student loan debt. First he encouraged youths to get involved:
Students should begin rebelling and marching across the country. Students have accepted this as like normal. It’s normal, but it is not right. And it is a point of rebellion. So we’re urging students across America who want to reduce the rate and have more grants and less loans, let’s begin to have marches, use last year’s energy in the presidential campaign, demand a new deal.
President Obama wants students, in fact, to get a better deal. Were it not for his hit book, we’d have a president today with a student loan. His hit book allowed—he and Michelle both, a presidential—Harvard Law School graduates—were still owing on their loan until two years ago. So think about those who are in a less fortuitous circumstance. So I’m anxious to urge students around America, don’t just sit there and take that hit. Let’s fight back.
But then he underestimates the ability of these same people to take personal responsibility for their own finances:
Well, the students, you know, really are seduced into the loans. I was talking to students from Northwestern last week, and they’re just kind of signing off, you know, assuming when they get out of law school, they can kind of pay it back. But now, I mean, those jobs don’t exist, so they can’t pay it back. And they marry each other, which doubles the burden and their compounded interest, and so that’s a big piece of this.
That’s right, just “signing stuff.” They were “seduced.”
Whether it is college students or anyone else, when the government scorns personal responsibility, we all lose.
Apr
27
Back on April 9th, Communism Now! was brodcasting from North Carolina and hosts Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez interviewed writer Chris Kromm. The show focused on the way the recession had impacted the economy of the Carolinas, North Carolina in particular. After criticizing South Carolina governor Mark Sanford for opposing the stimulus bill and initially refusing to take any funds, they then began to get fiscally conservative.
JUAN GONZALEZ: And your state has also, obviously for years, been known as a military-friendly state, and the presence of military bases there has a huge impact on the economy. And with the continuing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, has that been one of the few bright sides, in terms of employment opportunities for the state?
CHRIS KROMM: Yeah, well, as much as you can say that depending on the military for your economy is a bright side.
Kromm added later (emphasis mine):
But yeah, clearly, and this is another way in which—it’s just kind of part of the fabric in many communities in the South, that the military is just part of it. And I think that’s—what people don’t quite understand is, people sometimes assume that Southerners just have a more conservative bent and embrace the military. I think it has more to do with the fact that many of them depend on the military. I know I have lots of relatives who are in the service or are connected to it somehow, and it’s just part of the way of life here. And I think that’s what people have to understand. And until you give people economic alternatives, ’til you find a way out for these Southern states being so dependent on the military, that’s where you’re going to find these situations where these states seem to embrace the foreign policy agenda, where I think in reality they don’t.
Hasn’t it been the conservative argument that welfare does not help the poor because it makes them dependent on the government rather than on themselves? That government spending crowds out investment in more productive areas? That people come to support a particular group of people or a political party not out of ideology but out of rational self-interest?
When South Carolina Rep. James Clyburn (D) insinuated that conservative governors like fellow South Carolinian Sanford were racist because they opposed funding that would in fact bog their states down with mandatory spending expansions, did Kromm object? As he explained in the quote above, “…until you give people economic alternatives, ’til you find a way out for these Southern states being so dependent on the [government program], that’s where you’re going to find these situations where these states seem to embrace the [domestic] policy agenda, where I think in reality they don’t.” By this logic, is Kromm a racist because he wants to cut off funding for the state?
I wrote earlier about the apparent clash of beliefs about government intervention by liberals. I referenced these inconsistencies from Americans United for the Separation of Church and State:
Here’s an excerpt from the Faith-Based Initiatives section, a policy most notably supported by George W. Bush but also by Barack Obama:
Americans in need of social services, such as welfare support, job training, emergency shelter and food/clothing supplies, should be able to get the help they need without being pressured to take part in religious activities. “Faith-based” initiatives, which propose turning the provision of social services over to religious groups, threaten individual rights and could lead to taxpayer support of religious ministries.
Bingo. Citizens on the taxpayers dime should not be in an indoctrination camp where they are forced to subscribe to a certain set of beliefs in exchange for aid.
I then used this argument for the separation of church and state to advocate the separation of economy and state, warning that this
argument could very well apply to President Obama’s plans for “national service,” which has yet to really be defined. The moral hazzard also exists for whatever kind of “green jobs” Obama wishes to create. Will we really be helping youths and those out of work? No. Their economic livelihood will become linked with that of the state and the re-election of certain officials. That is not empowerment. That’s slavery. As I said earlier, “Citizens on the taxpayers dime should not be in an indoctrination camp where they are forced to subscribe to a certain set of beliefs in exchange for aid.”
Government intervention harms the entity they are trying to assist by making them dependant on the government. Government aid may, at times, help a person or company get back on its feet, but it never ends there. They are indebted to the state and when faced with a decision between their own interest and those of the state, cannot bite the hand that feeds it.
We can get into the debates about spending, welfare, federalism, and defense another time. All I’m looking for here is consistency. Do government handouts foster dependency? Is this bad?
The answer to both is yes.
Mar
13
Earlier this week, increasingly oft-mentioned on Zoominac, liberal radio show Communism Now! hosted economist Ha-Joon Chang, who was promoting a lovely tome entitled Bad Samaritans: The Myth of Free Trade and the Secret History of Capitalism.
While Chang and host Amy Goodman were disparaging the system built on voluntary choice and prosperity, the topic came up of what solution exists for government aid to banks. Chang’s response was chilling, but echoed a sentiment that is becoming increasingly and dangerously common. From the transcript (emphasis mine):
AMY GOODMAN: What do you think needs to be done right now?
HA-JOON CHANG: Well, I think one important thing that this country needs to do is basically to abandon this obsession with private ownership and go for nationalizing the banks.
Silly Americans and our stupid obsession with private ownership! Where do we get such silly ideas! Places where folks don’t share this obsession, like sub-Saharan Africa and Eastern Europe are doing so well!
Earlier in the conversation, Chang voiced his disapproval with some of Obama’s economic advisers:
Right. Well, no, I mean, I agree with this sentiment, but the people he put in charge of the economy, like Paul Volcker and Larry Summers, I mean, these are people who actually created this problem. You know, Volcker is, if you like, the godfather of monetarism in this country.
First off, I believe the title of “godfather of monetarism” should be bestowed on the late Milton Friedman. And while I’m not Paul Volcker cheerleader, his opposition to inflation, along with the Reagan tax agenda, saw one of the greatest economic turnarounds in American history in the early 1980’s.
Chang also voiced his support for American protectionist economic policy, citing its frequent use in the past. While protectionism has unfortunately shown its ugly and destructive face many times, the record of results is clear: It doesn’t work! I dabbled a bit in this subject here.
Folks, its important to know where liberal economic policy will lead us, and what we’re up against. If you’re not ready to “abandon this obsession with private ownership,” then you need to keep a close eye on the communists in our midst.
Mar
2
With Strings Attached
Filed Under Healthcare | Leave a Comment
With very few exceptions, any time one is given something, there comes with it strings attached from the giver. Sure, your mother might help you out with the wedding bills, but this means she must be consulted on the flower arrangements. Sure, your boss will approve that three day weekend coming up, but this means you’ll be staying late next Wednesday. When someone has a vested interest in something, especially financially, they are apt (and probably within their right) to have a say in how their assistance is used. Money from the federal government is no different.
Along with the global warming hoax, there is no greater example of this than government control of healthcare. Leftists in power (the Democrat party in particular) would love to not only institute universal healthcare, but use it to spread the slimy tentacles of the octopus known as the federal government into every facet of our lives. Coyoteblog has referred to this in many posts as the “Healthcare Trojan Horse,” where the trojan horse of healthcare (or some other government program that promises something to the public) is full of an army of government controls. From a post on the subject at Coyoteblog:
When health care is paid for by public funds, politicians only need to argue that some behavior affects health, and therefore increases the state’s health care costs, to justify regulating the crap out of that behavior. Already, states have essentially nationalized the cigarette industry based on this argument.
Government programs give the state a vested financial stake in the personal lives of its citizenry. I urged gay Mexicans to vote Republican by arguing that the Social Security Administration, Medicare, Medicaid, and state welfare programs were legitimizing the arguments against gay marriage and open immigration.
Last week, author Mark Shapiro hoped for such intrusion when he appeared on statist radio show Communism Now! Shapiro was on the show lamenting that US regulations are more lax when compared to the EU in regards to testing the safety of - makeup. If left unchecked, Shapiro warned, the evil American cosmetics industry (along with their supposedly formidable lobbying forces) would hawk dangerous foundations and mascara on the open market that would harm and possibly kill consumers! But wouldn’t consumers not buy products from a company that either neglected to do internal quality control, or sold such products, therefore providing an incentive for companies to do their own homework? Obviously, host Amy Goodman didn’t bring up that point, as it could in no way lead to government control of private enterprise.
So how could the poor federal government finally nab those evil makeup barons?
AMY GOODMAN: You know, it’s interesting. Do you think, as we talk about healthcare costs, that there’s more concern in Europe, because the states are paying the healthcare costs?
MARK SCHAPIRO: Yeah.
AMY GOODMAN: You know, single payer.
MARK SCHAPIRO: Yeah, yeah.
AMY GOODMAN: They’re paying for those costs.
MARK SCHAPIRO: Yeah, yeah.
AMY GOODMAN: Here, the state isn’t, so less concerned.
MARK SCHAPIRO: Well, when the debates began in Europe, one of the—you’ve identified the exact huge motivating force in Europe. The European states pay for healthcare of their citizens. So, when people, advocates and scientists and such, started arguing these cases with their governments, they made an economic argument.
Access to healthcare is one of many very important issues to which the left in this country have a never-ending list of government solutions. However, we as citizens need to be aware of the strings attached when we accept such bribes. Whether it is universal healthcare, or light rail from stimulus funds, there is no such thing as a free lunch. If the government is willing to control your choice with makeup, what else do they want to get their hands on?
Feb
23
Because It Worked So Well Last Time…
Filed Under Economics | 2 Comments
This week President Obama introduced his plan to use the resources of the federal government to attempt to stabilize the housing markets and, hopefully, the economy at large. The plan uses two strategies: allow homeowners who are current but have negative equity to refinance into a lower-rate loan under Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and to use incentives to “encourage” mortgage holders to modify loans where the borrowers are already behind on their payments. Why did I put “encourage” in quotes, you ask?
But the administration is also wielding a big stick. It will work with Congress to amend bankruptcy laws to allow judges to modify mortgages, a step community advocates say is badly needed but that the financial industry abhors.
If lenders don’t do what the government “encourages,” they could be in for some nasty surprises.
In bankruptcy cases, President Obama favors judges having leeway to reduce or “cramdown” the principle of the mortgage or rewrite the terms unilaterally. This blatant disregard for the rule of law will not only void agreements made volutarily by the the lender and borrower, it will greatly discourage banks from wanting to enter the mortgage market if they know that a contract can be voided at the will of a bankruptcy judge. Then again, that may not be a problem when all of the banks are owned by the government.
When Communism Now! covered the plan, they were glad to see that the bankruptcy courts would now be extorting lenders. Said guest Josh Zinner (emphasis mine):
So many people are underwater. They owe more on their mortgage than their house is actually worth. And this plan right now would do little for them. In bankruptcy, what a judge could do is cram down the amount owed down to the value of the property, and then a judge would be able to modify the terms of the mortgage—reduce interest rates, freeze interest rates on adjustable mortgages, adjustable-rate mortgages, extend the terms of loans.
…
The reason it’s critical is that right now there’s really no stick to mortgage servicers. There’s nothing to force them to do these modifications that are in everybody’s best interest, and they’re not doing them. If they’re facing an impending bankruptcy filing, that’s going to change dramatically, and it will cause them to do a lot more modifications within the parameters of the plan. So these changes are really critical for this plan to work.
Those on the left excuse such actions by being in ‘everybody’s best interest’. The CNN article quoted Obama in his speech in Arizona:
“In the end, all of us are paying a price for this home mortgage crisis,” Obama said. “And all of us will pay an even steeper price if we allow this crisis to deepen — a crisis which is unraveling homeownership, the middle class, and the American Dream itself. But if we act boldly and swiftly to arrest this downward spiral, every American will benefit.”
The question I pose is, if such actions really are in “everybody’s best interest,” then why the hell aren’t they doing them in the first place?
First of all, I realize that banks cannot profitably foreclose on every loan that falls behind and that voluntary loan modification is indeed in their best interest. If banks are failing to do so in these cases, its probably because they know they can wait for a plan like the one listed above to pay off their poor lending decisions.
However, in many cases it is not in their best interest. Its important to remember that, save a select minority of cases, these mortgages were agreed to voluntarily by the lender and borrower, and that the lender is the one that paid for the house. Borrowers have no right to demand that the bank or anyone else pay for their decisions. Whether a mortgage modification is in the best interest of the lender is the decision of - the lender! Not a borrower, a judge, or a politician.
The first part of Obama’s plan will have Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac take on even more loans, that, by definition, are significant credit risks because the program targets loans that exceed the actual value of the home. Not only is this taking on a risk in gross dollar terms, but a homeowner will have less incentive to keep up payments on a home that has no or negative equity rather than in a home that they do have equity. As we have seen, over the last decade especially, is that not only are Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae inept at assessing credit worthiness, their sheer size makes any problems they have for the reasons stated above particularly harmful.
In an article entitled How US mortgage debt could cause a global financial crisis, Dan Denning states:
In the US, Fannie Mae (FNMA) and Freddie Mac are Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs) which buy residential mortgages and repackage them to sell on as mortgage-backed bonds.
Denning then reviewed statements from former Treasure Secretary Henry Paulson:
The large size of GSE mortgage portfolios (about US$1.5 trillion), coupled with the lack of market discipline at correctly pricing the risk of GSE debt, multiplied by the interconnectivity of the world’s financial institutions has led to a possibility ‘without precedent.’ Henry adds that ‘Financial markets across the board would likely become very illiquid and volatile as firms with significant losses attempted to unwind their positions.’
Paulson is later quoted as saying:
“Has it been so long that we have forgotten Fannie Mae’s significant financial troubles in the late 1970s and early 1980s? During this time period, Fannie Mae’s balance sheet looked a lot like a savings and loan. As interest rates rose, Fannie Mae’s cost of funds rose above the interest rate it was earning on its long-term, fixed-rate mortgages. Like many S&Ls, Fannie Mae became insolvent on a mark-to-market basis. It lost hundreds of millions of dollars.”
So the risks of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac taking on loans that are inherently dangerous could have lare-scale effects throughout the American and global economy. But what is so interesting about the above article?
It was written in July of 2006.
The current conundrum we are in was not only foreseen and preventable, but directly attributable to the overleveraging of government sponsored enterprises (GSE’s) Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. I thought the Obama administration was all about ‘change’ and not repeating the mistakes of the Bush administration. Please. Obama is Bush on steroids. In addition, having the government refinance such loans is just a ‘bailout’ for the ’speculators’ who own the mortgages. Didn’t Obama vow not to protect these evildoers?
The following well-circulated video from 2004 is an example of the kind of big-government, Democrat-Party-style policies that led to this mess.
Obama’s plan would only increase an unsustainable, government-fueled housing bubble.
I’ll close with Dan Denning’s last line, in response to Paulson’s remarking of the hundreds of millions of dollars lost by Fannie Mae in the 1980’s:
If the same thing happens today, you can replace ‘hundreds of millions’ with ‘trillions.’
Feb
9
‘We Have To Be Willing To Be Led’
Filed Under Liberalism | Leave a Comment
I know this is a little late, but it was too important to go undocumented. The day after the inauguration of The One, Communism Now! covered the blind followers that have sprung up in droves to usher Barack Obama to new and dangerous levels of power.
The socialist radio show had a correspondent on the ground in Washington D.C. to get their take on the election of The One and his upcoming administration. From the transcript:
TAMMY BOUDREAUX: Hi. My name is Tammy Boudreaux. I’m from Houston, Texas. I’m a huge supporter of Obama, like many of us here. And he has a huge fan base in Texas, so don’t let that fool you. Yeah, I’m here to celebrate and participate in our future potential of becoming better.
Fan base? Is Obama a politician or Pearl Jam?
OBAMA SUPPORTER 1: Change has to occur, so something’s going to happen. How much, how much happens, we don’t know. But I think he got a pretty good stamp to do quite a few things, running off a change during his march to the White House. So he’ll be able to do some stuff. Will he be able to do everything he promised? No, and I don’t expect him to, either.
What??? I didn’t get it either.
OBAMA SUPPORTER 2: And we’ve got to realize we’ve got to give him patience, you know? Got to give him patience, make sure everything—these issues that we’re dealing with are all major issues, in and of themselves, and we’ve got like five major issues. And it’s going to take five years, four years to even tackle one of these issues, and the main issue right now being the economy. We’ve got to figure out and give patience to him and not put too much expectations on him.
I wonder if these people gave George W. Bush this kind of leniency after inheriting an economy in recession from Slick Willy and a major homeland terrorist attack in his first year?
Basically the above quote means that the Presidency of the most powerful nation on Earth is Obama’s by birthright and he should not be held to any standards or promises made throughout the campaign. But we shouldn’t be surprised. Liberalism is based on the idea that regular people are totally incapable of running their own lives. These talents are only held by a small elite who will dictate their marching orders from a distant capitol. And inevitable failures by statist liberals are simply the result of obstructionist jerks out there that, for some reason, feel the need to make their own decisions. Think I’m getting a little worked up? “Obama Supporter 1″ illustrated my point:
Oh, and the major thing is, he’s just the general, but we’re the army, so he can lead us, but we also have to be willing to be led and be able to go out there and do the hard work also.
Pardon my French, but Fuck That.
I ask my readers, are you “willing to be led”? Is Obama your “general”? Because I don’t know about you, but I am not some mindless drone who needs a dictator telling me what to do. I exist for my family and myself, not some self-serving politician in Washington. And I vote for candidates who will be careful stewards of my tax dollars, preserve my liberty and freedom, and in general represent and serve me. Not the other way around.
Another Obamunist showed what kind of values The One will bring to the White House:
LYND ROBSON: My first name is Lynd, Robson, and I’m from Montana, but I just moved to Washington. And I was part of the ’60s generation, the baby boomers. And, you know, it’s just wonderful to hear this generation and Barack Obama speaking to what we—the values of that time, which have somehow dissipated into the ozone, and he’s brought them back. And it’s just fabulous
Maybe we’ll soon have government sponsored LSD parties out on the South Lawn!
Drone # 4 gave us a peek at what will happen to those who dare defy the view that we are one conglomeration of humanity whose individual units and desires are secondary to the concept of unity:
OBAMA SUPPORTER 4: What I’m hoping is there’s going to be a change that is going to really reform the country. Right now, I think even at the grassroots level, a lot of people have given up or shifted their thinking. And I’m hoping this is the beginning of a shift of thinking that—where communities are going to come together and stop thinking about themselves as individuals and stop thinking that, hey, we’re going to improve life by making it better for our children, so our children can have more, better than we have, but rather, thinking in terms of things in terms of quality of life for entire communities.
Couldn’t have said it better myself. “Stop thinking about themselves as individuals..”. Same tired old Liberal mantra: we’ve been living too good, and now its time to submit to the State and start sacrificing before it’s too late! I’m so glad we’ve now got Change!
CLIFF FRASIER: My names Cliff Frasier, originally from Massachusetts, live in New York City now. And I’m going to the inauguration, because I worked for SEIU during the election, the labor union Service Employees International Union, and we worked a lot on the Obama election. And so, I want to be there. I want to be part of celebrating his victory and with all the other people who helped make this happen. And I just couldn’t imagine sitting in New York and not being here.
Thanks for the input Cliff. Now that Obama is beholden to you and your unionized ilk, maybe he’ll help Blago get that SEIU job he was hoping for.
Idiot #5 offered some intelligent commentary to close the segment:
OBAMA SUPPORTER 5: Obama! Obama! Obama! Obama!
I guess the good folks from How Obama Got Elected, these voters, and Peggy Joseph were not alone. God save the Republic.
