Feb
28
2010
By Richard Okelberry, February 28th, 2010 -
While I rarely agree with President Obama, I feel compelled to give him credit when credit is due. His announcement in the State of the Union address to support “a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants” and his later support for tripling the amount of federal loan guarantees in early February may mark a turning point in not just solving our future energy needs but also holds the promise of building in economic security for the future. This may be the best decision that this President has made since taking office and has the potential to be seen by future generations as a turning point in our history.
Nuclear Power can stabize our economy.
While pundits on the left and right may each try to blame the current economic fiasco on the past political policies of each; the fact is that our economic woes have more to do with energy than almost anything else. Energy is the life giving blood of our economy and has been since the beginning of the industrial revolution. As the cost of energy increases, so does the production cost of almost every product or service. This ultimately leads to inflation and cut-backs in the workforce.
Since the U.S. has become ever more dependent on foreign oil we have been subject to major price shifts when the prices of crude oil and its refined fuels spikes dramatically. Following each and every one of these spikes the U.S. economy slumps into recession. The first followed the OPEC embargo of 1973-74, the second followed the price shocks in the late 70s and early 80s which coincided with the Iraq-Iran war, the third took place in 1991 following the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq. Even with our most recent recession, prices gradually ramped up to an inflated peak in September 2008; just before the entire economy went into a full nose dive. While these energy recessions are generally short lived, they do still cause considerable hardship and have the tendency to push the government ever deeper into debt as it scrambles in search of ways to artificially stilulate the economy.
Fortunately, current technology has reached the point that a serious investment in nuclear power could lead to forever breaking our dependence on foreign oil. Not only are electric vehicles finally preparing to hit the market, but natural gas is already a viable fuel for modern vehicles. The roll that nuclear power would play in this conversion is to take away our reliance on natural gas for electricity production and as a heating source so that the resource could be distributed for use in vehicles without causing a major spike in its price.
Also, the heart of the economy, industry, would greatly benefit by cheap, clean power. To see the effect that cheap energy can have on industry we only have to look back to the late 1800s when one of the first industrial sized power stations was installed on the Niagara River. For the first time, energy was clean and plentiful. This one power station attracted a huge amount of industry and is historically responsible for the rapid growth of nearby Buffalo N.Y. By converting our entire power infrastructure to nuclear power which is far cheaper than even coal per Megawatt to produce, we will be giving a huge economic advantage to American industry. In fact, with plentiful cheap energy we will also likely see many companies who have moved operations over seas in search of cheap labor, returning to reap the benefits of cheap energy.
Imagine for a moment that the U.S. were to commit it’s self to converting 100% of our current electricity production to nuclear power. To provide the 3.3 Terawatts (3.3 trillion Watts) that we currently consume we would need to increase the number of nuclear plants in this country from 100 to 500. (This estimate in based on the production capacities of current, inefficient reactors.) If we use Obama’s 4 billion in loan guarantees per plant as a guideline, the total cost in guarantees for the nation to convert our entire electrical production over to nuclear energy would be around 1.6 Trillion dollars. This is a huge amount of money to be certain, but it is a drop in the bucket when we consider that under Obama’s current spending policy we are set to accumulate $17.2 Trillion in debt by 2019 without any clear economic benefit to the country; just a much bigger government that will have to be supported by future generations.
We also have to remember that these are merely loan guarantees designed to protect investors from the huge losses they may incur as environmentalist fight these projects at every turn. These guarantees also help protect investors for the long haul. Because it can take many years to construct one nuclear facility, investors need to know that the political tides are not going to shift before the plant can make a profit. It has happened before with the Shoreham plant on Long Island where investors put up the money to build a nuclear plant only to have political tides shift and the plant was never allowed to go online. Also, because there is already a surplus of electricity in the country from plentiful coal, investors need to know that the nation is truly committed to clean energy first and foremost and willing to wean its dependence on dirty coal.
Having the government responsible for any losses that it may cause through political manipulation of a market has little difference than forcing the government to pay fair value when acquiring land through eminent domain. Investing some of our “re-investment in America” money on a project that is sure to reap both economic and environmental benefits for the current and distant future is pure common sense.
Imagine living in a world where you are no longer being told to turn your lights off, or a world where clean water can be easily produced from the world’s oceans. A world where smog no longer chokes our cities and talk about man-made global warming is only a political footnote in our history.
I understand that this is only two new plants that have been approved and that two is only a fraction of the possible 400 needed to secure our energy future. Still, this is a start and will likely serve as a test case for future plants. The environmental movement has been so effective in their tactics that they have essentially halted the regular production of new nuclear power plants over the last 30 years; even as nuclear technology has not only become more efficient but safer and cleaner. Even the nuclear waste from a reactor can now be reused until the radioactive half life is reduced from over 1000 years to a mere 25 years, making the need for deep storage facilities like the one at Yucca mountain obsolete. Also, to be honest, I tend to agree with Democrats who claim that it is safer to keep spent fuel onsite than move it around the country by rail.
When Obama first announced this new initiative both Republicans and Democrats instantly chose to attack him on this issue. While it may serve a short term political strategy for Republicans to oppose Obama at every turn, they are failing to recognize that this has long been an issue that conservatives have supported. In my mind, this is just another example of how the Republican Party has lost touch with its base conservative principals. So what if Obama cancelled the Yucca Mountain nuclear storage facility? Storage of the spent fuel has become far less crucial with modern plants as the spent fuel is far safer and less radioactive than that produced by 70’s era plants.
If we truly want to stabilize our economic system and protect the economy from erratic mood swings, we absolutely need to make a major investment in improving our power supply. As politicians continue to blame each other for every economic down turn, they always seem to fail to recognize the cause and effect pattern that energy spikes have on the economy. It’s finally time for conservatives to seriously work with Obama on something. It’s time for conservatives to grasp this moment in history and make an all out push for wide spread nuclear development. Obama cannot in one moment say that modern nuclear power is clean and safe and needs to be a part of the solution, then refuse initiatives to do what we should have been doing for the last 30 years, building more nuclear plants.
Jan
1
2010
Source: Ipower Visitor Statistics Application
| Month | Unique visitors | Number of visits | Pages | Hits | Bandwidth |
| Jan 2009 | 718 | 1430 | 8360 | 33274 | 1.72 GB |
| Feb 2009 | 709 | 1321 | 9070 | 33715 | 988.49 MB |
| Mar 2009 | 938 | 1749 | 13351 | 45891 | 1.37 GB |
| Apr 2009 | 1197 | 1983 | 8810 | 34707 | 767.56 MB |
| May 2009 | 1214 | 2009 | 8639 | 29545 | 710.41 MB |
| Jun 2009 | 1125 | 1840 | 7356 | 23773 | 562.05 MB |
| Jul 2009 | 5712 | 6797 | 16339 | 72255 | 1.98 GB |
| Aug 2009 | 7664 | 8913 | 27882 | 92650 | 2.19 GB |
| Sep 2009 | 2845 | 3578 | 14217 | 37872 | 1.11 GB |
| Oct 2009 | 4907 | 5605 | 18371 | 53409 | 1.70 GB |
| Nov 2009 | 12945 | 14150 | 30238 | 101000 | 2.63 GB |
| Dec 2009 | 11583 | 12717 | 39510 | 128776 | 3.58 GB |
| Total | 51557 | 62092 | 202143 | 686867 | 19.23 GB |
Not bad, considering that most of my time was spent authoring over the past few years at KVNU’s For the People.
Here are the top 3, most read Essays in 2009:
- Bush Lied and People Died, Right?
- Utah Attorney General Issues Statement on Booting
- Utah Liquor Laws Discriminatory
I would like to note that I began my compaign for River Heights City Council in July of 2009. It is notable that it was during that month that my readership dramatically increased.
- Rich Okelberry
Dec
31
2009
By Richard Okelberry (Note: This Essay was originally published at KVNU’s, For the People Blog.)
Last week [April 15th, 2009] I posted an essay (Glenn Beck: Hung by the Neck) containing among other things a series of quotes made by the proprietor of www.OneUtah.org, Cliff Lyon illustrating the level of religious intolerance being preached at his web site. During the follow up discussion I was admonished by some for referring to the publishing of a LIST of Israeli / American citizens within the government by Richard Warnick also a writer for OneUtah as Anti-Semitic.
Because it can often be difficult for many who are looking from the outside to see religious intolerance and bigotry for what it is, I enlisted the help of a family friend to better explain.
The following is an excerpt from a response to this topic given by Professor Steve Siporin at Utah State University published here with his permission.
“I clicked on the link and read your essay and some of Cliff Lyon’s posts. Very disturbing. It makes me feel naive, not realizing all the hatred out there.
I’m not as tuned-in politically to nearly as many issues as you are, but as you know this is one that gets my attention (to put it mildly). And I could certainly be accused of being oversensitive, though I try to be fair and see both sides. Nevertheless, I agree with you that accusing dual citizens of being disloyal (and propagating this list) is a form of anti-Semitism. I’ll try to explain below, and I’ll try to be succinct.
First, I should say that I don’t have dual citizenship. It’s our son, who does. As an Israeli soldier, he’s on the front line defending America, I’d say!
Second, how do we know this list of supposed dual citizens is accurate? Is it just a list of people with Jewish-sounding last names who he can slip by claiming they have dual citizenship without any proof because our guard is down, recognizing their Jewish-sounding names? (Where did he get this info? Is it public info?) I looked up one of them, James Schlesinger, on Wikipedia. He’s not even Jewish! (He converted to Protestant Christianity–didn’t say which church.) So although I don’t know if he’s a dual citizen, it seems unlikely (unless perhaps it’s honorary). So I have my doubts that all the people on that list really do have dual American/Israeli citizenship.
Does he think all American Jews are also Israeli citizens? (That would be an interesting anti-Semitic conspiracy theory.) It takes an effort to become an Israeli citizen, including living in Israel. So again, where’s the information source that says that these aren’t just Jews (and the one I checked out wasn’t) rather than dual Israeli/American citizens?
Third, another way in which this is anti-Semitic: what other countries does the USA have agreements with which allow for dual citizenship? I don’t know, but I know there are several. Are those who have, let’s say, Canadian/USA dual citizenship ever accused of having too much influence on US foreign policy? Of favoring Canada? Where is the list of those people? In other words, it’s no accident that a particular group is singled out (because of underlying mistrust based on anti-Semitic stereotypes).
Fourth, and most serious. The accusation that Jews have greater loyalties elsewhere has a long, ugly and unjustified history. (I could write about this for hours, but I’ll restrain myself.) Enough to point out that this was precisely the accusation against Jews in fascist Italy and Nazi Germany that claimed they could never be patriotic. (Of course in both countries–I’m most familiar with Italy–Jewish soldiers died in disproportionately high numbers in World War I, defending their respective homelands—Italy, Germany, Austria, etc.—killing each other out of loyalty to their home countries.) The facts just don’t bear out the accusation. The way one writer who was interrogated by the fascists in Italy during the 1930s because he was a Zionist put it was like this: Who do you love more, your mother or your father? Do you have to choose? Don’t you love them both equally? I understand his analogy to be that Israel (though it had not yet been reconstituted) and Italy were like mother and father and he loved them both and there was no contradiction in that.
I think we all have more than one loyalty—to our religion, to our families, to our ethnic group, and so on. These are hardly ever in conflict. In fact they reinforce each other. Jews have thrived in America and have been grateful, loyal Americans. (It would be hard to challenge the patriotism of people on that list, by the way, whether or not one agrees with their political philosophy.) For the most part these other loyalties–religion, family, ethnicity–reinforce our American loyalty because this is the place where it’s ok to be different and we all appreciate that. Israel, of course, has values very close to American values. Growing up in Omaha I never felt any contradiction between what I learned in Hebrew school and what I learned in public school. They reinforced each other at every turn.
Finally, a minor point but one that confirms your instincts about the anti-Semitic nature of this list. It’s the old unspoken prejudice that all members of X ethnic group (no matter which) think the same way and act virtually in unison. Kind of lumps everyone together and they lose their individuality. So, even if all these people are Jewish and hold dual citizenship (which hasn’t been established, merely asserted) that doesn’t mean they hold the same opinions (about Israel or anything else). The old Jewish in-group saying is “Two Jews, Three Opinions.” And it’s true–as recent elections in Israel showed how hard it is to form a government because there are so many parties with such different opinions. You can be sure the people on that list have a range of opinions about Israel as well as other things. You can count on that!
Anyway, I’ve rambled too long. I hope this is helpful. You don’t need to cite me, but you can use anything I’ve written here that’s useful to you. I really appreciate you support in this; I find the world to be more anti-Semitic (or indifferent) than at any time since the 1930s and really wonder where we’re headed when we treat our best friends as enemies.
Best to all of you,
Steve
- Professor Steve Siporin is a folklorist who holds a joint appointment in English and History. He teaches a wide variety of folklore classes, including Jewish Folklore and Folklore and Religion. He is the author of American FolkMasters: The National Heritage Fellows (Abrams, 1992) and co-editor of Worldviews and the American West: The Life of the Place Itself (Utah State University Press, 2000).
- Professor Steve Siporin was named director of the Folklore Program at Utah State beginning Fall 2008.
- His translation of Augusto Segre’s memoir from the Italian appeared as Memories of Jewish Life: Italy to Jerusalem, 1918-1960 (University of Nebraska Press, 2008).
- Siporin’s article entitled “A Contemporary Legend from Italy” was published in the Journal of Folklore Research 45 (2008): 63-84; and his translation entitled “The Rabbi’s Family” (also from Augusto Segre) appeared as a chapter in the book and exhibition catalog, Ebrei Piemontesi: The Jews of Piedmont (New York: Yeshiva University Museum, 2008).
- Professor Siporin was an invited speaker and gave a paper entitled “Mixed Motives: Sustaining and Defining Jewish Heritage in a Small Italian City Today,” at the international conference “Modern Jewish Culture: Diversities and Unities,” held in Wroclaw, Poland, June 24-26, 2008. He plans to present a paper entitled “Where Does the Parokhet Belong?” at the annual meeting of the American Folklore Society in Louisville, Kentucky in October 2008 and a paper entitled “The Chocolate Egg and the Diamond Ring” at the international “Metamorphoses” conference in Salt Lake City, also in October.
- Siporin continues to serve as an editorial board member for the Jewish Cultural Studies Series of the Littman Library of Jewish Civilization (UK).”
- The following is the complete list that has been “floating” around the internet being republished by various people like Richard Warnick. I have yet to be able to locate it’s original source or validate it’s accuracy:
American / Isreali Dual Citizens in the American Government LIST
Attorney General – Michael Mukasey
Head of Homeland Security – Michael Chertoff
Chairman Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board – Richard Perle
Deputy Defense Secretary (Former) – Paul Wolfowitz
Under Secretary of Defense – Douglas Feith
National Security Council Advisor – Elliott Abrams
Vice President Dick Cheney’s Chief of Staff (Former) – “Scooter” Libby
White House Deputy Chief of Staff – Joshua Bolten
Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs – Marc Grossman
Director of Policy Planning at the State Department – Richard Haass
U.S. Trade Representative (Cabinet-level Position) – Robert Zoellick
Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board – James Schlesinger
UN Representative (Former) – John Bolton
Under Secretary for Arms Control – David Wurmser
Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board – Eliot Cohen
Senior Advisor to the President – Steve Goldsmith
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary – Christopher Gersten
Assistant Secretary of State – Lincoln Bloomfield
Deputy Assistant to the President – Jay Lefkowitz
White House Political Director – Ken Melman
National Security Study Group – Edward Luttwak
Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board – Kenneth Adelman
Defense Intelligence Agency Analyst (Former) – Lawrence (Larry) Franklin
National Security Council Advisor – Robert Satloff
President Export-Import Bank U.S. – Mel Sembler
Deputy Assistant Secretary, Administration for Children and Families – Christopher Gersten
Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development for Public Affairs
- Mark Weinberger
White House Speechwriter – David Frum
White House Spokesman (Former) – Ari Fleischer
Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board – Henry Kissinger
Deputy Secretary of Commerce – Samuel Bodman
Under Secretary of State for Management – Bonnie Cohen
Director of Foreign Service Institute – Ruth Davis
Addendum:
The detailed “LIST” referred to by Mr. Warnick can be found at: Dual Citizenship — Loyal to Whom?
Here is one example from this “LIST” that Mr. Warnick claims is in no way Anti-Semitic:
“Ari Fleischer
Ex- White House Spokesman for the Bush (Jr) Administration. Prominent in the Jewish community, some reports state that he holds Israeli citizenship. Fleischer is closely connected to the extremist Jewish group called the Chabad Lubavitch Hasidics, who follow the Qabala, and hold very extremist and insulting views of non-Jews. Fleischer was the co-president of Chabad’s Capitol Jewish Forum. He received the Young Leadership Award from the American Friends of Lubavitch in October, 2001.”
Attached to this essay is a sub-link to another essay from the same site titled: Who runs Hollywood and the main stream media?
“Do the Zionist Jews own Hollywood and the media? Are they using the media to mold and shape American opinion by constantly injecting Zionist propaganda and bias into news programs, movies, television shows, even children’s cartoons and entertainment?
The answer is so blatantly “Yes!” that you wouldn’t think these questions are even worth pursuing. But recently, the untoward comments of a patriot talk show host made me stop and rethink it. Are there people out there-even in the Patriot Movement-who really are that much in the dark, who deny Jewish influence in the media?” – Texe Marrs
Dec
27
2009
By Richard Okelberry (Note: This essay was written in response to a post made by Cliff Lyon, proprietor www.oneutah.org.)
REF: Republican Jesus
Once again, Cliff Lyon seems all too willing to forgo even the most basic understand of Christianity and replace it with a broad bigoted whitewashing of Christians as nothing more than hypocrites that fail to live up to the tenants of their own faith. In essence, Cliff Lyon by republishing this anti-Christian diatribe seems to believe that the vast majority of Christians are gun totting, NASCAR watching hicks that fail to have even a basic understanding of the teachings of Christ. Of course as usual, in doing so he exposes his own inability to understand Christ’s teachings.
“The biblical Jesus preached at length about renouncing worldly possessions and giving to the poor. Republican Jesus believes that such handouts merely encourage the poor to be lazy, and that Christian charity is better practiced through massive tax breaks for the wealthiest citizens, who could then be expected to let the money “tinkle down” to the poor in the form of honest, if low-paying, jobs at upright Republican institutions like Wal-Mart.”- Cliff Lyon
This statement is a perfect example used by many who regularly attack Christianity. It implies that a faithful Christian should be more than happy to hand over his/her earnings to the government to help the poor. It simultaneously implies that Christians see the poor as undeserving of compassion and charity. Both of the assumptions on the part of Mr. Lyon are completely false.
In reality, the far majority of Christians are very giving when it comes to the poor. In fact the far majority of non-profit efforts to feed and cloth the poor in this country come from Christian efforts. Even when Mr. Lyon criticizes the LDS Church; saying, “If the LDS Church gave away even 10% of its annual income to feed the poor, I would be surprised. It seems to me a really, really true church would give away 100% and its flock would demand it” he fails to recognize that following Katrina, it was primarily Christian organizations and faiths, with the LDS Church chief among them, that were first on the scene providing for the most basic needs of the victims. (This is not to say that non-Christian organizations also helped) In fact the LDS response to the catastrophe ultimately led to FEMA consulting with the LDS Church on ways to better improve the distribution of supplies during such a tragedy.
Ultimately, Cliff Lyon is making the same mistake that so many that have come before him have made when attempting to describe “true” Christian beliefs as supporting “Socialism.”
“Jesus WAS a socialist and his teachings ARE socialism, therefore, if Jesus’ teachings are sacrosanct for you, then you accept, however distasteful, the sacrifices and the generosity required to live his teachings.” – Cliff Lyon
Just as when Obama tried and failed to express biblical teachings when he declared, “I am my brother’s keeper,” Mr. Lyon has failed to understand that there is a major difference between calling on people to be charitable out of their own heart and using the long arm of the government to take from the rich to give to the poor. He has missed the fact that if we as Christians enact laws designed to take an uneven amount from the Rich in taxes for programs that we might benefit from or so that we might not have to give as much, we are essentially stealing money from that person and in violation of God’s commandment and theft. The reality is that Socialism and its eventual result, Communism is fueled by greed and a covetous hearts. It uses slogans of class warfare to convince people that those with wealth are undeserving of it and therefore are deserving of having it taken from them by force if necessary. Does anything about this idea sound Christian at all?
The irony is that the true hypocrite here is Cliff Lyon. I have in the past and will again ask him to put his money where his mouth is and donate ALL of his wealth to the government so that it may provide for the poor. If he truly believes that it is our duty to provide for the poor through the government because, “The cycle of poverty in this country is chronic,” then why is he waiting for everyone else to be forced to do so first? As a Christian, I am asked by God to be charitable and provide as I may for my fellow man as part of my spiritual life. I am told to give unto Caesar’s what is Caesar’s and give to God what is God. As such I will continue to give to God what is his, including my charity.
How strange that a man, Cliff Lyon, who regularly speaks out against those who would even consider crossing the line between church and state would now be advocating that religious tithing and charity be turned over to the government as a “true” expression of faith.
“I’m interested in decapitating people who think their religious opinions belong in government.”- Cliff Lyon
If anyone would like a better understanding of the relationship between Socialism, Communism and Christianity, you can read my essay, “Was Jesus a Communist?” fromr 2006.
Dec
3
2009
By Richard Okelberry (Note: This Post was originally published at KVNU’s, For the People Blog.)
Immediately following the speech by President Obama given at West Point which called for an increase in troop strength in Afghanistan, Arianna Huffington, owner and founder of the online center for liberalism in America, the Huffington Post, has called for Vice President Joe Biden to Resign.
“Joe Biden met with CENTCOM chief Gen. David Petraeus this morning to talk about Afghanistan — an issue that has pushed the vice president into the spotlight, landing him on the cover of the latest Newsweek.
I have an idea for how he can capitalize on all the attention, and do what generations to come will always be grateful for: resign.
The centerpiece of Newsweek’s story is how Biden has become the chief White House skeptic on escalating the war in Afghanistan, specifically arguing against Gen. McChrystal’s request for 40,000 more troops to pursue a counterinsurgency strategy there…” Arianna Huffington, The Huffington Post
Unfortunately, for both Obama and Biden, she didn’t just do this on her web site but then went around to the various cable news networks and repeated her calls for what she calls a “resignation on principal.”
While I personally have long supported giving the requested troops to the commanders on the ground in Afghanistan, I have to give Arianna Huffington props for standing by her principals. In fact, principled liberals seem to be shedding the haze created by the Obama Cult of Personality (OCP) and speaking out against this presidency everywhere.
As expected by many, Obama decided to try and play both sides of this issue by giving in to the troop requests while declaring a specific date for withdrawal from Afghanistan. Apparently this decision didn’t sit well with Biden who apparently wanted, like many other uber-liberals an immediate withdrawal of troops and a stand back lobbing missiles approach to fighting terror. This straddling of the fence on this issue by trying to uphold his campaign commitment to be strong on terror while simultaneously appeasing the peace brigade at the base of his party has created a situation where instead of everyone being happy with the decision, everyone from conservatives to die hard liberals are at odds with the President and saying it loudly.
“How do you on the one hand say, ‘we need to send these troops over there, it’s critical, this is in our national security interest to do this,’ but then say, ‘but we’re only going to keep ‘em there for 18 months.” – Bob Shieffer, CBS NEWS
Of course this decision was probably the safest bet for the President.
First there will always be those Obamatons who will ALWAYS back, defend and justify anything that Obama does; even to the point of excusing it by pointing to the fact that Bush did something similar; as if it’s OK for Obama to do something as long as Bush did it, even though we wined and complained about it under Bush. These are the same people who continue to say that anyone who opposes this president does so because they are racist or simply hate the man. Any attempt to make these individuals understand that there is serious, legitimate and broad spread disagreement with this President over many issues is simply impossible.
Second, even those on the uber-left who have begun to criticize Obama won’t switch parties. They helped elect this President and now they will have to resign themselves to being disgruntled supporters if they have any hope of keeping a Republican out of the White House in 2012. In the end I believe that Obama is rely on a belief that apathy will not overcome his supporters next year during the election and during his on re-election in 2012. Notice that his withdrawal date for Afghanistan falls conveniently just before his the election gets into full swing. Of course he has to hope and pray that things don’t fall apart in Afghanistan after the withdrawal.
I imagine that ultimately, from failing to immediately end the war in Iraq, immediately close GITMO, failing to bring Bush and Cheney to trial for war crimes, failing to push through the first draft of Socialized Health Care and now spending billions on a war and ordering our military to kill more people has to be seriously aggravating those on the radical left that ultimately pushed Obama past Hillary and onto the presidency with the belief that he held similar values regarding war. Wasn’t this supposed to be our President of peace that recalled all the troops and had us singing Kumbaya around the White House in candle-light vigils for our dying earth? Was all their work for not? Are they now left with a weak and inexperienced president who will turn coat against the founding principals of progressive liberalism for his own political gain?
I have to imagine that apathy among the Democrat base has to be growing exponentially as they all begin to realize that they like the rest of the country, they have been suckered by a man who would say and do anything to gain power.
Suckers all around!