Americans are now more likely to die by their own hands than from a car accident or a murder-related incident, a grim statistic that shines a light on abusive corporate practices.
Judging by the latest data by the Center for Disease Control, something is driving Americans to become their own worst enemies: From 1999 to 2010, the suicide rate among US citizens between the ages of 35 to 64 soared by about 30 per cent, to 17.6 deaths per 100,000 people.
Suicide now ranks higher than death by automobile: in 2010, there were 33,687 deaths from motor vehicle crashes compared with 38,364 suicides.
Although suicide tends to be viewed as a problem inflicting teenagers and the elderly, the recent study shows a marked rise in the number of suicides among the Baby Boom generation (a demographic group born between the years 1946 and 1964, when the annual birthrate rose dramatically in the US).
Suicide rates soared across all four geographic areas and in 39 states. The state of Wyoming recorded the highest increase in suicides with a 78.8 per cent jump (31.1 per 100,000). Even the paradise state of Hawaii witnessed a 61.2 per cent increase (21.9 per 100,000).
Yet some believe even these shocking numbers are too low since many deaths are not treated as actual suicides.
“It’s vastly under-reported,” Julie Phillips, an associate professor of sociology at Rutgers University, told The New York Times. “We know we’re not counting all suicides.”
What’s going on here? What is suddenly pushing so many Americans to take their own lives?
The striking thing about the data is that the suicide rates really began to surge just as the Global Financial Crisis was making landfall in late 2008. While suicide rates increased slowly between 1999 and 2007, the rate of increase more than quadrupled from 2008 to 2010.
“There is a clear need to implement policies to promote mental health resilience during the ongoing recession,” said Aaron Reeves of Britain’s University of Cambridge, who submitted his findings to The Lancet medical journal.
Reeves went so far as to suggest that the Democrats and Republicans are partially to blame for failing to mention the issue during the latest presidential campaign.
“In the run-up to the US presidential election, President Obama and Mitt Romney are debating how best to spur economic recovery, [but] missing from this discussion is consideration of how to protect Americans’ health during these hard times,” Reeves warned.
Where’s the democracy?
So what else is responsible for driving up American suicide rates? Could it be the loss of democratic representation inside our corporate fortresses, those medieval-style fiefdoms that are now working overtime to control the US political process as well?
Thanks largely to the passage of the Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission ruling (2010), transnational corporations are now entitled to donate unlimited amounts of hard cash to the political campaign of their choice without having to come clean on the expenditures. The ruling even applies to foreign corporations!
So great is the corporate footprint in the halls of power that I fear the day is close at hand when we will actually see a corporation make a run for political office. Why not? They have already been designated as bona fide individuals by our craven Supreme Court (In the book, “Unequal Protection,” Thom Hartmann persuasively explains how the 1886 US Supreme Court decision in Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company case wrongfully granted corporations personhood).
“Businesses have won,” David Macaray, a labor columnist, wrote in his Huffington Post blog. “They’ve increased their production demands, they’ve extended employees’ work hours (after having-laid off a segment of the workforce), they’ve taken to issuing ultimatums, and they’ve done all of it while, simultaneously, having kept wages relatively stagnant.”
As for traditional benefits such as pensions, bonuses, sick leave and paid vacations, forget about it. Most of those have been abolished, Macaray added.
Did somebody mention a vacation? Despite all the hyped-up talk about freedom and liberty, American workers receive the stingiest vacation packages in the free – and oppressed – world. That is not because Americans have some sort of masochistic attachment to their desks, as some like to argue, but rather because we lack any sort of labor law that forces corporations to remove our chains more than once a year.
Incredibly, the United States is the only country in the world where corporations are under no legal obligation to provide their workers with a break from their jobs. Compare that sad statistic with any other country in the world, even the most totalitarian. This Scrooge mentality must change, or all of our boastful talk about democracy and freedom will be revealed as nothing more than a diversionary smokescreen to conceal what can only be described as an attack on human rights.
Why is it that other countries can readily afford to give their people a break from their jobs and still maintain high living standards?
“Germany is among more than two dozen industrialized countries from Australia to Slovenia to Japan – that require employers to offer four weeks or more of paid vacation to their workers, according to a 2009 study by the human resources consulting company Mercer,” reported CNN.
Still other countries, including Finland, Brazil and France, guarantee their workers up to six weeks off.
It seems fair to ask whether America’s lack of time away from the office is contributing to high stress levels and even sporadic episodes of domestic and workplace violence, up to and including suicide. Shouldn’t the world’s most heavily armed and medicated nation allow its people to hit the beach more than once a year?
This question brings us back to the issue of democratic representation in the workplace, which is presently missing in action.
Although organized labor is itself fraught with problems, it is nevertheless the last line of defense when it comes to protecting US workers against the insatiable greed of the corporate overlords. Thus, it should come as no surprise that US wages have been plummeting over the last 30 years at the very same time that unions are being decimated.
The total number of union workers fell by 400,000 last year, to 14.3 million, even though the nation’s overall employment rose by 2.4 million, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Just 11.3 per cent of the US workforce is enrolled in a union, the lowest recorded levels since 1916, when it was 11.2 percent, according to a study by two Rutgers economists, Leo Troy and Neil Sheflin, as reported in The New York Times.
Never before has the wealth divide been greater in the United States, a land that was built on the foundation of opportunity.
Between 2009 and 2011, the top 7 per cent of wealthy Americans saw their average net worth explode by 28 per cent, while the wealth of the remaining 93 per cent of the population steadily declined during the same period, according to a study by the Pew Research Center.
The average net worth of the country’s 8 million wealthiest households surged from an estimated $2.7 million to $3.2 million, the Pew study said. For the 111 million households that make up the bottom 93 per cent, average net worth plunged 4 per cent, from $140,000 to an estimated $134,000.
In 2010, the first supposed year of economic recovery, 93 per cent of all pre-tax income gains went to the top 1 per cent of the American population (that is, any household earning more than $358,000).
Meanwhile, the most affluent 7 per cent of households owned 63 per cent of the nation’s household wealth in 2011, up from 56 per cent in 2009.
These mind-numbing statistics are a mere reflection of millions of individual cases of pain and suffering wrought by the economic crisis, which seems to have only affected the middle and lower classes.
One consequence of the economic fallout is the record number of foreclosures on homes. Since 2007, almost 4 million homes have been lost in the foreclosure crisis, according to Forbes. At the same time, US home prices – except in the most affluent neighborhoods – remain essentially flat.
On top of this pummeling, Americans must digest the incredible news that many US corporations, some of which were rescued by taxpayer-funded bailout, are not paying any taxes on their earnings.
General Electric, for example, reported global profits of $14.2 billion for the year 2010, with $5.1 billion of the total deriving from its operations in the United States.
So how much did the granddaddy of US corporations pay in taxes to Uncle Sam? Nothing. Nada. Zilch. In fact, GE actually claimed a tax benefit of $3.2 billion.
How was GE able to pull off that disappearing act?
“Its extraordinary success is based on an aggressive strategy that mixes fierce lobbying for tax breaks and innovative accounting that enables it to concentrate its profits offshore,” tooted The New York Times.
Is the rash of suicides across a broad spectrum of the American population a direct result of the wealth hoarding by the top income earners – many of them US corporate ‘individuals’? Since it is clear that Monsters Inc. have all but hijacked the American dream, not to mention the US political process, the evidence seems to point in that dark direction.
Clearly it is time for the United States to tame the beast of corporate power, and as was the case with the separation of church and state, we must prohibit business from unduly influencing our political leaders.
Our government representation is a precious and limited resource. It cannot be allowed to be squandered on entities that are already enjoying great wealth and power as it is.
Robert Bridge is the author of the book, Midnight in the American Empire, which discusses the dangerous consequences of excessive corporate power in the United States.
Unable to move on:
In his first interview since losing last year’s presidential election, Mitt Romney made it pretty clear through his words and tone that he hasn’t moved on from his loss. “I look at what’s happening right now, I wish I were there. It kills me not to be there, not to be in the White House doing what needs to be done.” Ditto his wife, Ann. “It was a crushing disappointment. Not for us. Our lives are going to be fine. It’s for the country.” Given that the Romneys haven’t moved on, it raises this question: Why did they do the interview? In fairness to Romney, he’s not the first losing presidential candidate to have a hard time getting over a loss — George McGovern, John McCain and Al Gore all come to mind. Not everyone ends up like Mondale or Dole and moves immediately to elder statesman status. By the way, don’t miss what Romney said about his infamous “47%” comment: “What I said is not what I believe.” Folks, that one sentence sums up Romney’s two failed presidential bids.
It gave the political reporting award to David Corn of Mother Jones magazine, who uncovered the video of Romney at a private fundraiser remarking that 47 percent of Americans—those who back Democratic President Barack Obama—are “victims” who are “dependent upon government” and “pay no income tax.”
The video became an immediate news sensation, and was used by Democrats in damaging ads against Romney, the former Massachusetts governor. It further hurt the public perception of Romney at the same time as Democrats were pushing a narrative portraying Romney as out of touch. A press release announcing the award described the story as one that “rocked the nation and perhaps cost Mitt Romney the Presidential election.”
Could Mitt Romney Actually Become President Early This Year? If You Believe the Los Angeles Times, Yes.
Yeh. You read the title right
Imagine if Barack Obama was feeling under the weather on January 20thand Mitt Romney jumped in and insisted that we needed to overturn Barack Obama’s November 6, 2012 victory and do the election all over. Imagine that the L.A. Times and the mass media agreed. Joe Biden might try to do damage control by holding up a copy of the U.S. Constitution and pointing out that the swearing-in ceremony is merely a formality and that Obama could simply take his oath at a later date when he is feeling better. After all, he is currently President and has previously taken the oath. Obama won the Presidential election last fall by a huge margin (though not as big of a margin as that by which Hugo Chavez defeated Henrique Capriles). If you listen to the legal scholars connected to the Los Angeles Times, too bad for Obama but a no-show could mean he’s out and Mitt has another crack at the Presidency. In anticipation of the possibility, perhaps Mitt and his buddy Paul Ryan ought to get out those phone lists and prepare their supporters to rush back to the polls.
Even if it was Mitt who sent Obama the FDA-approved GMO dinner on the 19th that upset his stomach enough to make Barack miss the ceremony, Mitt wouldn’t be considered insensitive by the modern-day press about Barack’s health by trying to steal the government, America’s resources and the gold (if any is left) at Fort Knox on behalf of himself and his rich backers. According to the reasoning of the L.A. Times legal scholars, Mitt and company apparently have the right to a brand new Presidential election in the next month if Barack can’t make that formal ceremony.
This reasoning behind the above Romney takeover scenario makes about as much sense as the reasoning espoused by Henrique Capriles and his small band of thugs, who are calling for new elections in Venezuela should Hugo Chavez need to postpone his inaugural ceremony in the interests of protecting his health. According to Capriles, his gang of racketeers, and the Los Angeles Times, even if leaving his hospital bed early kills Chavez, a Constitutional crisis will arise if Chavez postpones the ceremony, which is taking place in his honor. Obama should watch out. His inauguration is only ten days later and the Times might not be any more forgiving of his postponing than of Chavez’s postponing. Perhaps, Obama should start boycotting the Los Angeles Times in the interest of protecting his own election victory.
The Los Angeles Times is not the only news service going to absurd lengths to help overturn legitimately elected governments. The news media and the Government of the United States seem to have gone out of control quite some time back in an effort to overturn democracy in as many places as possible.
The news media lied big time about what was happening in Libya so that British Petroleum and the United States could orchestrate a very violent coup in order to steal that country’s oil. The media falsely claimed that Muammar Gaddafi was attacking his own people and that they needed protection. Never mind that eye witnesses to what was really happening on the ground at the claimed locations said that nothing of that sort was taking place and that the media was flat out lying. News services copied fake stories from each other and sold non-existent events as facts. The events in the movie, Wag the Dog, had more basis in reality than the news stories pushing the war on Libya. Former Congresswoman and Presidential Candidate Cynthia McKinney went to Libya and saw what was going on and then traveled around the United States to try to educate the people, here, on the truth. Though the auditoriums presenting her were packed with people eager for facts, the news media refused to let their own audiences in the truth.
Something similar happened on the Friday of the Sandy Hook Elementary School incident when Adam Lanza’s mother was said to be a kindergarten teacher and the media reported that Lanza shot his father before going to the school. They also said the brother was arrested at the scene. Fake stories were copied from other false stories until the version of events that emerged that day left the whole country in confusion and wondering what really happened.
According to the experts in the Government of Venezuela, Article 231 of the Venezuelan Constitution allows Hugo Chavez to take the oath late and does not require him to attend the ceremony on the 10th to retain his position as President. A member of the opposition was provided with his own copy of the Venezuelan Constitution during a recent Assembly session or rather (according to the opposition) it was thrown at him. The opposition still doesn’t seem to have taken the time to read it.
On January 8th, the National Assembly erupted in a standing ovation after passing a measure affirming that Hugo Chavez could remain President and be away from the country for as long as necessary to deal with his illness. The Supreme Court plans to speak on this issue on January 9th.
The failure of Barack Obama to take a firm stand in support of Venezuela’s democratic election outcome in 2012 is a sign that Obama, himself, has qualms about democracy being the best form of government. Americans, themselves are wondering why Obama has turned the nation over to the Republicans and is nominating Republicans for cabinet posts when the Democrats won the 2012 election. There is an old quote from Winston Churchill that, “Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others” ”
The citizens of Venezuela are planning to take to the streets on January 10th in support of their President Hugo Chavez. Uruguay’s President Jose Mujica, Bolivia’s President Evo Morales and Foreign Minister Ricardo Patino of Ecuador have confirmed that they will also be present on the 10th in support of Hugo Chavez and the Venezuelan people.
So, even if Mitt is searching for the right kind of bad food to feed Barack on January 19th, it may not help him if the United States follows the example of Venezuela and supports the result of the 2012 Presidential election, regardless of when and where the formality of the oath takes place.
Special Note: This article was inspired by the following Facebook post by Bob Witanek. “Could you imagine if Obama were to be sick for his own inauguration and had to be hospitalized – and Cuba and Venezuela were making noise that he would have to be deposed accordingly? What a joke!-”
A piece posted to the Tea Party Nation website yesterday, and sent to the group’s members in an email from TPN head Judson Phillips, blamed the school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut on teachers, unions, bureaucracy, and the presence of sex in popular culture. In a lengthy screed that’s essentially a round-up of every major cultural and policy grievance the American right holds with the rest of the country, author Timothy Birdnow cited concerns about the mental health of shooter Adam Lanza, the lack of spanking in schools, and the new movie “Django Unchained” — among other things — as evidence that American popular culture “has made murder, rape, mayhem, hatred, and violence ‘cool.’”
He then went on to recommend a number of interesting solutions, including a lamentation that George Zimmerman was not guarding Sandy Hook Elementary School:
Homeschool. Take away the power of the radicals in the classrooms. Makes your kids safer, too.
Back Right to Work legislation for the public sector. Teacher’s unions have helped cement much of this in place. As long as we have group think in the classrooms we will never see the end of this. […]
Work to devolve power back to the parents, the local officials, and the communities. A society that is top-down will inevitably lead to alienation of the sort we have seen here. This young man was twenty years old, and his actions were neither spurious nor random. As an FBI profiler said on television last night, he undoubtedly felt powerless and sought to remedy that. Why does a twenty year old feel powerless? He could leave his mother’s home at any time at his age. He feels powerless because he has lived in an over-bureaucratized society, one run ultimately from a far-away central location. […]
Restrict the sex in movies, television, on the internet. There is a reason why young people commit these sorts of crimes, and sex plays no small part. Their passions are eternally inflamed, and they wander the Earth with no outlet for their overstimulated glands. […]
Support the creation of local organizations to act as “neighborhood watch” for schools. Had George Zimmerman been at the front door instead of some mechanical card reader those children would still be alive. Perhaps it’s time we start asking for volunteers to protect our children. It will require security checks, but isn’t that worth it? This dovetails with the union problem; the unions will fight this measure tooth-and-nail.
This isn’t the first time Tea Party Nation has indulged in extremist outbursts. Members of the group chanted “pay for it yourself,” suggesting the uninsured should finance their own health care out of pocket, at protests during the Supreme Court hearings on Obamacare. In 2011, TPN emailed a message urging businesses to “not hire a single person” in protest against Obama’s presidency. And Phillips also responded to the controversy over Mitt Romney’s tax returns by suggesting Republicans inquire whether President Obama is a drug addict.
New York:New York) Ucs News : This week it was revealed that Donald Trump has added the words Bloviating Ignoramus to the more than 200 trademark applications that contain his own name. The 200-plus number is held up as an example of his greed; his need to increase the value of his name (claimed to be $3 billion) by attaching it to “every kind of product imaginable, from hotels to perfume to a vanity beer label.”
A search on the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office website shows the good, the bad, and the ugly:
Trump Bloviating Ignoramus
Trumps Bad Hair
The Trump Art Collection
The Trump Follies
Trump Birther Moron
HOUSTON — In the weeks since President Obama’s re-election, Republicans around the country have been wondering how to proceed. Some conservatives in Texas have been asking a far more pointed question: how to secede.
Secession fever has struck parts of Texas, which Mitt Romney won by nearly 1.3 million votes.
Sales of bumper stickers reading “Secede” — one for $2, or three for $5 — have increased at TexasSecede.com. In East Texas, a Republican official sent out an e-mail newsletter saying it was time for Texas and Vermont to each “go her own way in peace” and sign a free-trade agreement among the states.
A petition calling for secession that was filed by a Texas man on a White House Web site has received tens of thousands of signatures, and the Obama administration must now issue a response. And Larry Scott Kilgore, a perennial Republican candidate from Arlington, a Dallas suburb, announced that he was running for governor in 2014 and would legally change his name to Larry Secede Kilgore, with Secede in capital letters. As his Web page, secedekilgore.com, puts it: “Secession! All other issues can be dealt with later.”
In Texas, talk of secession in recent years has steadily shifted to the center from the fringe right. It has emerged as an echo of the state Republican leadership’s anti-Washington, pro-Texas-sovereignty mantra on a variety of issues, including health care and environmental regulations. For some Texans, the renewed interest in the subject serves simply as comic relief after a crushing election defeat.
But for other proponents of secession and its sister ideology, Texas nationalism — a focus of the Texas Nationalist Movement and other groups that want the state to become an independent nation, as it was in the 1830s and 1840s — it is a far more serious matter.
The official in East Texas, Peter Morrison, the treasurer of the Hardin County Republican Party, said in a statement that he had received overwhelming support from conservative Texans and overwhelming opposition from liberals outside the state in response to his comments in his newsletter. He said that it may take time for “people to appreciate that the fundamental cultural differences between Texas and other parts of the United States may be best addressed by an amicable divorce, a peaceful separation.”
The online petitions — created on the We the People platform at petitions.whitehouse.gov — are required to receive 25,000 signatures in 30 days for the White House to respond. The Texas petition, created Nov. 9 by a man identified as Micah H. of Arlington, had received more than 116,000 signatures by Friday. It asks the Obama administration to “peacefully grant” the withdrawal of Texas, and describes doing so as “practically feasible,” given the state’s large economy.
Residents in other states, including Alabama, Florida, Colorado, Louisiana and Oklahoma, have submitted similar petitions, though none have received as many signatures as the one from Texas.
A White House official said every petition that crossed the signature threshold would be reviewed and would receive a response, though it was unclear precisely when Micah H. would receive his answer.
Gov. Rick Perry, who twice made public remarks in 2009 suggesting that he was sympathetic to the secessionist cause, will not be signing the petition. “Governor Perry believes in the greatness of our union, and nothing should be done to change it,” a spokeswoman, Catherine Frazier, said in a statement. “But he also shares the frustrations many Americans have with our federal government.”
The secession movement in Texas is divergent, with differences in goals and tactics. One group, the Republic of Texas, says that secession is unnecessary because, it claims, Texas is an independent nation that was illegally annexed by the United States in 1845. (The group’s leader and other followers waged a weeklong standoff with the Texas Rangers in 1997 that left one of its members dead.) Mr. Kilgore, the candidate who is changing his middle name, said he had not signed the White House petition because he did not believe that Texans needed to ask Washington for permission to leave.
“Our economy is about 30 percent larger than that of Australia,” said Mr. Kilgore, 48, a telecommunications contractor. “Australia can survive on their own, and I don’t think we’ll have any problem at all surviving on our own in Texas.”
Few of the public calls for secession have addressed the messy details, like what would happen to the state’s many federal courthouses, prisons, military bases and parklands. No one has said what would become of Kevin Patteson, the director of the state’s Office of State-Federal Relations, and no one has asked the Texas residents who received tens of millions of dollars in federal aid after destructive wildfires last year for their thoughts on the subject.
But all the secession talk has intrigued liberals as well. Caleb M. of Austin started his own petition on the White House Web site. He asked the federal government to allow Austin to withdraw from Texas and remain part of the United States, “in the event that Texas is successful in the current bid to secede.” It had more than 8,000 signatures as of Friday.
A version of this article appeared in print on November 24, 2011
Conservative scholar, talk radio host, and former Reagan administration official Mark Levin said conservatives need to first overthrow the Republican establishment to more successfully take on President Barack Obama and the institutional left.
“We cannot get through Obama and the left until we get through the Republican Establishment,” Levin said, railing against establishment consultants who attack the base and politicians who know nothing of “Burkean reform” because they have spent their whole careers “clawing their way to the top.”
In a talk at the Heritage Foundation on Wednesday with his mentor, former Reagan Attorney General Ed Meese, for whom Levin served as Chief of Staff, Levin said the Republican Party is, “devouring the conservative movement,” and the old bulls need to step aside in favor of a new generation of conservatives who are fluent in conservatism.
“It’s time for the old bulls to get out of the way and for the fresh faces who believe in conservatism and liberty and originalist principles to step up,” Levin said, criticizing those like House Speaker John Boehner for “yielding territory” to the left in negotiations.
Levin said the Tea Party consists of constitutionalists, libertarians, Evangelicals, and those who are against the rigged establishment, beltway culture that for too long has not embraced conservatism and, as a consequence, lost national elections (George H.W. Bush, Bob Dole, John McCain, Mitt Romney).
“The Tea Party is the only thing that stands between liberty and tyranny,” Levin said. “We have to defeat the Republican establishment mush in Washington, D.C.”
Levin also named the establishment media organizations and institutions on the right that he said were not helping advance the conservative cause.
He said, “in a lot of our media outlets,” there are “a lot of old, dreary people who are just around all the time” who “reject” Reaganism.
Levin named Bill Kristol at the Weekly Standard, who recently called for more tax increases; and the National Review, the Washington establishment publication that vigorously supported Mitt Romney in the primaries, Levin said, in many ways, has “become a mouthpiece for the Republican party.”
Levin said the Republican Party will go the way of the Whig Party if they do not put out more “cutting-edge intellectuals and artistic” spokespeople for the conservative cause that transcends race or class.
Shortly after President Barack Obama was elected in 2008, Levin wrote Liberty and Tyranny, which sold over a million copies despite not being reviewed and being completely ignored by mainstream media outlets and programs.
The prescient book not only clearly articulated what would eventually turn out to be the Tea Party’s opposition to Obama’s statism (Levin knew what Obama was going to do before even Obama) but was also symbolic of how, in the new media age, books and ideas could commercially succeed without the legacy media institutions of yesterday that no longer act as gatekeepers.
To appeal to young people and minorities with conservatism, Levin said Republicans needed to call on parents and grandparents to have an impact on young people and appeal to their sense of liberty and anti-authoritarianism.
He said this “bottom up federalism” can appeal not only to young people but to minorities.
Levin noted that capitalism is the plan and the strategy is the constitution, and that was the foundation of Reaganism.
He said after Reagan, George H.W. Bush lurched to the left rather than “build up Reaganism” and the party and the conservative movement has not been the same since.
Levin also said ethnic front groups who want more balkanization instead of assimilation are also threats and need to be called out.
In talking about Republican institutions, Levin said the Republican National Committee needs to be managed better because, simply put, “when you lose, you gotta bring some other people here.”
“Backbenchers need to go to the front,” Levin said, noting that the frontbencher establishment class has been trying to “clean out” conservatives who do not toe the moderate, establishment line.
Levin said Obama would inevitably overreach on many fronts during his second term. For instance, Levin predicted Obama would try to break down America’s sovereignty by working with the United Nations on a global tax and committing America to more international military arrangements.
“The people are going to rise up,” Levin said.
When discussing the future of conservatism, Levin highlighted in particular Texas Senator-elect Ted Cruz and former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, among others.
“I love Sarah Palin,” Levin said.
“You see how intelligent she is?,” Levin asked, noting that Palin is nothing like the caricature of her on the left and in the mainstream media.
Levin said Palin should be given credit for effectively and enthusiastically articulating the conservative cause, even though she has been attacked by the mainstream media and the Republican establishment.
“Yet, she still rallies the base a hundred times more than these people telling us what we are supposed to do,” Levin said.
Mitt Romney didn’t lose because he was awful and the GOP message was awful and the rest of the Republican Party was awful. No, it was because President Barack Obama gave people free shit.
“With regards to the young people, for instance, a forgiveness of college loan interest, was a big gift,” he said. “Free contraceptives were very big with young college-aged women. And then, finally, Obamacare also made a difference for them, because as you know, anybody now 26 years of age and younger was now going to be part of their parents’ plan, and that was a big gift to young people. They turned out in large numbers, a larger share in this election even than in 2008.
”The president’s health care plan, he added, was also a useful tool in mobilizing African-American and Hispanic voters. Though Mr. Romney won the white vote with 59 percent, according to exit polls, minorities coalesced around the president in overwhelming numbers — 93 percent of blacks and 71 percent of Hispanics voted to re-elect Mr. Obama.
“You can imagine for somebody making $25,000 or $30,000 or $35,000 a year, being told you’re now going to get free health care, particularly if you don’t have it, getting free health care worth, what, $10,000 per family, in perpetuity, I mean, this is huge,” he said. “Likewise with Hispanic voters, free health care was a big plus. But in addition with regards to Hispanic voters, the amnesty for children of illegals, the so-called Dream Act kids, was a huge plus for that voting group.”
Phew! He no longer has to pretend that his 47 percent remarks were “just completely wrong.”
He can go back to his belief that 47 percent of Americans are leeches on society. And bragging to his country club friends about all the NASCAR team owners he knows, as if anyone gives a shit.
Conservatives weigh in on immigration reform — Sean Hannity, John Boehner & Charles Krauthammer express their views
“The fact that leading movement conservative voices are joining Republican leaders in calling for immigration reform that includes relief for the 11 million undocumented immigrants in America is a major development that will open up space for the GOP to do the right thing and help pass sensible reform legislation,” Sharry wrote in an American Voice blog.
America’s Voice points to the latest comments regarding the topic from various influential Republicans and conservatives as a sure sign that reform will happen sooner, rather than later.
Sean Hannity, the influential Fox News television and radio host said on his show last Thursday that he has “evolved” on the issue. He said the US needs to “get rid of the immigration issue altogether” and that he supports a “pathway to citizenship.”
Speaker of the House John Boehner told ABC News that the issue has been around far too long.
“A comprehensive approach is long overdue, and I’m confident that the president, myself and others can find the common ground to take care of this issue once and for all,” he said.
Conservative columnist and pundit Charles Krauthammer wrote in the Washington Post, that amnesty may be likely.
“In securing the Republican nomination, Mitt Romney made the strategic error of (unnecessarily) going to the right of Rick Perry. Romney could never successfully tack back. For the party in general, however, the problem is hardly structural. It requires but a single policy change: Border fence plus amnesty. Yes, amnesty.”
Krauthammer added: “promise amnesty right up front. Secure the border with guaranteed legalization to follow on the day the four border-state governors affirm that illegal immigration has slowed to a trickle.”
via Conservatives weigh in on immigration reform — Sean Hannity, John Boehner & Charles Krauthammer express their views | Irish News and Politics spanning the US, Ireland and the World | IrishCentral.
via Conservatives weigh in on immigration reform — Sean Hannity, John Boehner & Charles Krauthammer express their views | Irish News and Politics spanning the US, Ireland and the World | IrishCentral.
The New York Times has an awesome graphical breakdown of voting data from the 2012 Presidential election.
In case you had any doubt about how the country breaks down along gender, age, race, financial status, religion, education, and community lines, just have a glance at these stats.
Obama won “Women” by 11 points (55% to 44%). This was very important, because women made up 53% of voters.
Romney won “Men” by 7 points (52% to 45%). Men were only 47% of voters.
Obama won “Young voters” (18-29) by an astounding 24 points (60% to 36%). These folks were 19% of total voters.
Obama won “Young middle aged voters” (30-44) by an impressive 7 points (52% to 45%). These folks were 26% of total voters.
Romney won “Middle-aged voters” (45-59) by 5 points (52% to 47%). These were 29% of voters.
Romney won “Older voters” (60+) by 9 points (54% to 45%). These were 25% of voters.
Obama won “Black voters” by a staggering 87 points (93% to 6%). Blacks were 13% of voters.
Obama won “Asian voters” by a remarkable 47 points (73% to 26%). Asians were 3% of voters.
Obama won “Hispanic voters” by a remarkable 44 points (71% to 27%). Hispanics were 10% of voters.
Romney won “White voters” by 20 points (59% to 39%). Whites were 72% of voters.
Obama won gay, unmarried, and working-mother, and parents-with-young-kids voters by massive margins.
Romney won “married” voters.
Obama won uneducated (no high school), modestly educated (high school), and super-educated (graduate degree) voters.
Romney won college grads by a small margin.
Obama won by a staggering margin voters who said their financial situation is the same or better than 4 years ago.
Romney won by a big margin voters who said their financial situation is worse.
Obama won households making less than $49,999 by ~20 points
Romney won households making more than $50,000 by 6-10 points
Obama easily won voters who classify themselves as Democrats and Liberals and narrowly won those classifying themselves as Moderates
Romney easily won voters who classify themselves as Republicans and Conservatives, and very narrowly won Independents
Obama won by a landslide in big cities and easily in small cities.
Romney won easily in rural areas and more narrowly in the suburbs and towns.
Obama won Jewish voters handily (2% of voters) and Catholic voters (25% of voters) narrowly
Romney won protestants (53% of voters) and white evangelical Christians (26% of voters).
The Revolt of the Little People
The re-election of a president, who has led the nation into one of the worst economic crises in our history, is a wake-up call for citizens on both sides of the political divide. If the election proved one thing, it’s that we’ve now crossed the threshold into class warfare. That’s the good news. The bad news is that there’s only one way that this can end, and that’s very badly.
If the election had just been about the president’s record, he no doubt would have lost. However, the election wasn’t about his record. Instead, it was a referendum on this nation and what it has become – a country of haves and have-nots. A nation of equality we are no longer; rather, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
In this election, the president was viewed as being the champion of Carl-Henric Svanberg’s little people and Mitt Romney… well you know who he champions. It’s not that the president actually represents the little people, but compared to Romney…well, there is no comparison. Therefore, the little people voted with their hearts and not their pocketbooks.
When the little people get angry, there is hell to pay. Down through history, revolution was all but inevitable in many cases, just ask the Russians and the French. However, we the people need to realize that in a republic, such as ours, government is never a solution to problems (rather it’s a self-governing instrument of the people). Neither does government have any money of its own – we the people create the wealth of the nation. Therefore, it doesn’t help the situation when one class of people, in effect, vote themselves hand-outs from the government. Hand-outs don’t grow on trees and they don’t come from the government either.
What we have inherited now is a polarized nation and, in the long run, the republic cannot survive as such. We have to decide whether we are going to continue as a free nation or whether we’re going to gradually descend into either anarchy and/or rule by the elite. No matter how it turns out, it is destined to be remembered as the Revolt of the Little People.
via The Ethical Warrior.
via The Ethical Warrior.