The Fight Over Late-Term Abortions in the Lone Star State: America's Descent into the Abyss of Abomination

(Above: Texas State Senator Wendy Davis, D - Ft. Worth, who filibustered for 13 hours over the late-term abortion bill before the state senate in Texas. Courtesy of Wikipedia)

Introduction: Acknowledging the Ineptitude of GOP Politicians

Upon the election of George H.W. Bush in 1988, the consensus among political pundits was that the Democratic Party may never regain a solid foothold in the White House again.  The party was in shambles, and had been since Jimmy Carter's embarrassing landslide defeat at the hands of the far-more charismatic and emblematic figure of the conservative movement, Ronald Reagan, in 1980.  Yet, as the Republican Party managed to do so well with Richard Nixon during the Watergate Scandal of 1972-74 and his successor, Gerald Ford, who did nothing but make a laughing stock of himself by stating that there was no domination of Eastern Europe by the Soviet Union in the second presidential debate of 1976 (See videos below), and topped ultimately with the coup de gras of former-President George H.W. Bush promising not to the raise taxes and then doing so in just his second year in power, the party managed to destroy all of its credibility among its loyal constituents and result in the current tide of rabid liberalism that has been the prevailing force-wind in U.S. politics for more than 20 years.

This is the video of then-President Richard Nixon announcing his resignation on August 8, 1974:

And of Gerald Ford's infamous gaffe about Soviet-domination in Eastern Europe:

And this excerpt from then-1988 presidential candidate George H.W. Bush at the Republican National Convention in New Orleans, where he made his most (in)famous speech pledging not to raise taxes that by his second year as president, he retracted and thus brought about the recession that would end the GOP's 12 year run of dominance in the White House:

____

As we can see, while the Democrats are smooth talkers and far superior politicians, the GOP is the exact opposite.  Republicans consistently ruin every opportunity afforded them whereupon when a Democratic lawmaker or president makes a serious mistake in public policy or becomes embroiled in scandal(s) they manage to become the "Teflon Dons" of American politics.  In 1999, upon the Senate being charged with the task of determining then-President Bill Clinton's fate as a result of the House's passing the Articles of Impeachment due to his lying under oath while providing testimony on his then-alleged affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky, it failed to vote him out of office.  If this had been a Democratic-controlled Senate, it would have been one thing, but it held a Republican majority.  This trend continues today, most notably in the two most recent reactions and votes within the Senate regarding the NSA spying scandal and Edward Snowden's role in revealing; and the 14 GOP senators who voted in favor of the immigration bill -- two of whom, Lamar Alexander and Bob Corker, are from my home state of Tennessee.

The Abortion Issue Takes Flight in Texas

A great deal of the time, conservative-libertarian ideals such as mine are not in the majority of the American people's visions of what would make our nation better, and yet they are by far in the best interest of our country. To paraphrase Jean-Jacques Rousseau, might does not always make right.  The principles upon which America were founded are no longer championed by the majority of the population.  We see this today with the abortion issue, an issue former President Ronald Reagan once stated was not an one of faith or religion, but of the Constitution.  Below is a clip of that remark by Reagan in one of the presidential debates with Walter Mondale in 1984:

The movement towards conservatism in the 1980's regendered a resurgence of the American patriotic spirit long since divested within our society by decades of the propagation of licentiousness, irresponsibility, and the subsequent immorality resulting from the previous two descriptions.  Yet today, we have not only returned to the practices of pre-Reagan Revolution politics and policies, but have exacerbated the issue.  Sex has always sold like hotcakes as I once wrote in a poem about six years ago, yet this phenomena has taken on a more heightened state of emergency in society.  Today, we see reality television shows on MTV and VH1 where young people engage in acts of promiscuous sex, living dissolute lives predicated upon the above-mentioned propagations, and yet rather than the conservative movement counteracting this menace, it stands by idly while the tide of the radical Left passes it by, rendering the Right "impotent and obsolete."

Such behavior often results in the aborting of more than a million children in American annually.  Depending on the article you read, there are estimates that between 1.2 and 1.3 million unborn children will be aborted in America by mothers.  Since World War II, approximately 50 million babies have been aborted in the United States; yet claims of infanticide domestically have seen a dramatic drop in occurrences since the Roe v. Wade decision of 1973.  However, you and I know better than to believe this trend; the practice of abortion is, indeed, infanticide, albeit in a legalized, institutional format.  Throughout the world since World War II as well, the world has seen more than 1.5 billion babies be aborted by parents, more than the populations of both China and India.  The fact we have seen so many inexcusable deaths is not just a concept predicated upon murder, but rather genocide.  The Left in America will do whatever it can to propagate, promote, and encourage this evil institution, but at the same time seek to use photographs of dead school children at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, to achieve its means of eventually banning all legal possession of firearms, as well as ending all prisoner executions for heinous crimes committed by violent criminals against their victims.  There is no consistency behind the definition of "justice" in America today, and we, the American electorate, are solely to blame.  The American voter continues to elect Democrats into public office seeking to create a new Sodom and Gomorrha and base our society on the principles that led to the fall of the first great empire the world has ever known (the Roman Empire).  If we do not act more intelligently and wisely with our votes in the next two elections, we risk further damage to the validity of America's founding principles all while our nation will continue to spiral ever deeper into the abyss of abomination.

In Texas, the abortion issue is the greatest debate raging in the state capital of Austin today.  The news has reported on this for more than a week, prompting people of both political persuasions to vocalize their opinions on the matter.  As I will be speaking out vehemently and vociferously against this evil establishment, I will bring up the Left's using young school-age children to hold signs in favor of abortions who just a few years earlier could have been the unborn children extracted their mothers' uterus's.  There is also the point whereupon the religious pro-life organizers clashed with secular members of the Left promoting pro-choice laws, but those of the latter persuasion who did so while chanting, "Hail Satan!" repeatedly.  The video of this can be seen below:

Among other things, these are the principles guiding the conscience of the Democratic Party.  The Democrats will do whatever it takes to garner as many votes as possible, something we have seen just recently with the immigration bill passed just about a week ago.  Pictured below are photographs of the a fore-mentioned children carrying posters of coat hangers, long a sign of the pro-abortion movement; as well as the equally-stunning photo of two women I will define as "utter whores" who acknowledge this trait about themselves in their posters: 

Conservative-libertarians are not only a growing minority in the American political sphere, but also within the Republican Party itself.  I fear it is a movement destined for extinction unless someone as charismatic as Ronald Reagan resurrects the ideology from the ash heap of history.

(Above: Texas Gov. Rick Perry on the right; State Sen. Wendy Davis on the right.)

While a flawed leader of the national conservative movement in terms of his presentation of its philosophy, Gov. Rick Perry has no doubt the best interests for his state and America at heart.  His stand-off against State Senator Wendy Davis (D) has been monumental, and he continues to fight her through calling another session of the legislature.  

To provide a short recount of the history of the issue on the late-term abortion issue in Texas involving both Sen. Davis and Gov. Perry, I will turn to Wikipedia to provide the information:

On June 25, 2013, Senator Davis began a filibuster to block the Senate Bill 5, "the bill would ban abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy, require abortion clinics to meet the same standards that hospital-style surgical centers do, and mandate that a doctor who performs abortions have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital."^[20] She attempted to maintain the floor until midnight, when the Senate's special session ended, after which the state Senate would no longer be able to vote on the measure.^[21] Following a 10-hour filibuster, Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst ruled that Davis had gone off topic, forcing a vote on whether the filibuster could continue.^[22] Despite Republican efforts, parliamentary inquiries from Leticia R. Van de Putte and others as well as raucous cheering and yelling from the political activists gathered in the Capitol carried on through midnight and the close of the special session.^[23] Following the deadline, Republicans indicated that a vote had taken place and passed, while Democrats declared that the vote had taken place after midnight, making it void.^[23] Dewhurst later conceded that the bill was dead.^[24][25] On the 26th, Governor Rick Perry added the bill as part of three bills in a second special session to be debated again.^[26][27]

Conclusion: The Article Authored by Sarah Lee Titled "Taking Back Feminism"

As a regular reader and subscriber to the conservative-libertarian online publication United Liberty, I have had the great privilege to read some the most intelligent and common-sense-laden articles on politics on the Internet.  Today's article by conservative feminist Sarah Lee was no different, and in fact, one of the most refreshing reinforcements to me that there is a semblance of morality within some women among the legions of profligates.  The article from the site will be cut-and-pasted below, as it will serve as my conclusion for this blog article for today:

Taking Back Feminism

Wed, 07/03/2013 - 4:19pm | posted by Sarah Lee

As a woman, watching what’s happening in Texas is a study in dichotomies. On the one hand, the right to speak about reproductive rights at all is fairly astonishing and heartening given the relative inability of women the world over to do the same. On the other, the most hateful among us appear to be squandering that precious gift by — well —chanting “Hail, Satan!” at people who have a different take on reproductive rights (read: the right to reproduce), and celebrating being a “ho.” Pretty sure that’s not what the early crusaders for women’s rights in this country had in mind, but whatever. Times change.

What does not change, however, is the human tendency — particularly in politics — of those on the side of a losing argument to devolve their protestations into puerility and desperation, both in an attempt to gain attention to “the cause,” and to shock and offend; because shocking and offensive behavior drives the news cycle, and the news cycle (in theory) determines relevance. Hence, the very ridiculous images and videos coming out of Texas as they debate late-term abortion.

Personally, I have very strong opinions about the morality of aborting babies at 20 weeks and later. It seems to be antithetical to what women are designed to do. But I guess convenience, in modern society, has taken a larger role (and, before you get started, I’m more forgiving of abortion for those who are medically endangered or have been raped).

A male friend of mine, who told me about the silly young girl invoking the personification of Evil (whether real or a myth to you personally, everyone understands that’s what Satan represents), made an astoundingly profound statement about late-term abortion: he said that proponents of abortion MUST defend abortion at any stage (even the Gosnell stage) because, if they don’t, they have to admit that it’s the snuffing out of life (you can rhetorically wrangle this one any way you like but the spark of life is simply what it is) at EVERY stage. I think that’s right.

So, basically, it requires getting right with that fact before deciding how you feel about it. Or, invoking Old Scratch in order to be comfortable in your denial I guess. I’m also particularly intrigued by the “ball of cells” argument, and the “get the government out of my uterus!” argument. They all seem to be the verbal equivalent to killing the messenger. Quite literally. And what this messenger portends is that there are consequences to the sexual act and so one should plan accordingly and give it the proper weight. But again, planning is inconvenient and inconvenience isn’t fun.

All that aside, what interests me most here, more than the politics, are the tactics. As noted, it’s not uncommon for those on the losing side of an argument that just don’t have the support of facts on their side (in this case, that we should cavalierly start scraping fully-formed babies from wombs) to start yelling and calling names and, horrifyingly, using children as props. It’s fine to have the debate. I’ll disagree with you, and you can disagree with me. But, as my male friend said this morning, assuming you don’t actually believe that Satan should be hailed, and it’s reasonable to think this silly child in Texas doesn’t, then you are full of such contempt that you will do and say the most ridiculous things to defeat your opponent. And that doesn’t speak well for your argument.

And one other thing: as a feminist, albeit one to the right of the Planned Parenthood cult, I would ask the ladies drowning out one of the most beautiful songs ever written, to please watch this video and try to stop making the rest of us look bad by doing everything but listening to your sisters-in-arms. You may find that the truths are not so inconvenient after all. 

Nancy Pelosi: Catholic in Name Only, Blasphemer by Trade Towards the American Way

Introduction: An Expose on the Idiocy of Nancy Pelosi

There are really some scary whores in Washington and around the nation trying to propagate the practice of licentious behavior by making abortions more accessible.  But in the case of Nancy Pelosi, well, I am surprised she has not made it her agenda to promote this "greater need" for national promiscuity by dedicating a day during the calendar year towards the performance of orgies followed shortly by free distribution of coat hangers to each and every woman in America paid for by Obama Care.  There are so many ways she has gone out of her way to make herself look stupid that I have lost count, and in the interest of time, which is finite, I can only provide you but a few examples of her sheer idiocy that is a custom of the majority of liberals.  Below are YouTube videos of some of her "greatest hits" from the past few years since she gained power over the Democrats and the House of Representatives:

(Above: House Minority Leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-CA, compares Obama Care to Independence Day on July 4th.)

(Above: House Minority Leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-CA, admits jail is perfectly acceptable for refusing socialized health care.)

(Above: Then-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, D-CA, states that they had to pass the bill right away so "[we] would know what is in it.")

(Above: Revelation that Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-CA, granted waivers for Obama Care for the constituents in her district.)

(Above: House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-CA, predicts that the U.S. Supreme Court will rule in favor of Obama Care by a margin of 6-3 "because I know the Constitution.")

(Above: Then-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, D-CA, arrogantly declares that she knows what is best for the American people by passing the Affordable Health Care Act, aka. "Obama Care.")

___

Conclusion: Nancy Pelosi is a Complete and Utter Profligate, Both Morally and Politically

Interestingly, I found her to be one of the worst public speakers to whom I have ever listened.  The Democrats for years derided former president George W. Bush's oratory skills; Pelosi, however, takes the cake.  Another funny thing is how she claims she knows the Constitution, that she knows what is best for the American people.  This is precisely the mentality of the Democratic Party; its members and adherents always act in our best interests so long as we continue to give them power by our votes.  That being said, it is Democrats such as Pelosi who would rather the poor were poorer so long as the gap in income and wealth distribution were smaller.  The more dependent we are upon them for our needs, the more likely they will stay in power.  Unfortunately, Bill O'Reilly was correct on Election Night 2012 when he stated that idol citizens, minorities, and Democrats vote for the Democrats because they will give handouts and promote licentiousness and irresponsibility to appease their constituents at the cost of no one other than hard working Americans.  This is true, and I fear that unless the GOP drastically alters its course, America could become another Western Europe.

And finally, let us listen to the infamous outtake from her regarding abortions which drew the ire of a Catholic priest:

(Above: House Minority Leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-CA, puts politics before her Catholic faith when she promotes abortions at any time.)

(Above: Fr. Frank Pavone's response to Nancy Pelosi.)

___

"If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land." (2 Chronicles 7:14 NIV)

___

Let it be known that aside from her socialist policies which I hold in contempt, she is putting politics before The Lord, a vice which no doubt violates at least three of the Seven Deadly Sins of Roman Catholicism: wrath, greed, sloth, pride, lust, envy, and gluttony, of which are highlighted.  The cliche that applies to some is "Hell is paved with good intentions," but not Nancy Pelosi.  She knows what she is doing, and she has sold her soul to attain the position as the most powerful woman in the history of the United States government.

An Article to Honor the 150th Anniversary of the Battle of Gettysburg -- July 1-4, 1863

(Above: Pickett's Charge at the Battle of Gettysburg.)

In my estimation, there have been two pivotal battles in the history of American warfare.  The first was the Battle of Yorktown, which lasted from September 18 through October 17 of 1781.  The other occurred at Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, between July 1 and 3 of 1863, making today part of the 150th anniversary of the climatic event that ultimately decided the American Civil War.  My father, in a friendly debate with me on a number of occasions this week leading up to the past two days, claims that the latter battle at Gettysburg was the single most important one in U.S. history, and I cannot totally disagree with that other than to state that Yorktown was of equal importance.  The case with the Battle of Gettysburg is properly summarized by Steve Straub, the proprietor of the site on U.S. history titled The Federalist Papers after the actual series of published articles by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, stated this in his introductory paragraphs in summarizing the importance behind that battle:

The battle of Gettysburg; was the supreme crisis of the war. All the circumstances under which it took place conspired at the time, and will ever conspire, to draw upon it the world’s attention as the culminating’ point in the struggle. Everything was staked upon its issue. Had it resulted in a decisive defeat to the National army, the National cause would, in all probability, have been lost.

There was practically but one obstacle to prevent the Confederate army from going where and doing what it pleased, and that obstacle was the Army of the Potomac. Had that army been overwhelmed New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Harrisburg would have been in peril of seizure by the enemy, the National Capital would have been isolated, and the National  Government captured or put to flight.

Though these paragraphs do not go into any specific details regarding the battle itself, they certainly outline the gravity of the situation.  The Confederacy had dominated the war for the first two and a half years, and by Gen. Robert E. Lee marching his Army of Northern Virginia into Pennsylvania at the culmination of the Battle of Chancellorsville, the situation was dire for the Union. 

To properly explain the war in short, yet great, detail, below is the account of the battle, courtesy of History.com:  

Battle of Gettysburg: Lee's Invasion of the North

In May 1863, Robert E. Lee's Confederate Army of Northern Virginia had scored a smashing victory over the Army of the Potomac at Chancellorsville. Brimming with confidence, Lee decided to go on the offensive and invade the North for a second time (the first invasion had ended at Antietam the previous fall). In addition to bringing the conflict out of Virginia and diverting northern troops from Vicksburg, where the Confederates were under siege, Lee hoped to gain recognition of the Confederacy by Britain and France and strengthen the cause of northern "Copperheads" who favored peace. 

On the Union side, President Abraham Lincoln had lost confidence in the Army of the Potomac's commander,Joseph Hooker, who seemed reluctant to confront Lee's army after the defeat at Chancellorsville. On June 28, Lincoln named Major General George Gordon Meade to succeed Hooker. Meade immediately ordered the pursuit of Lee's army of 75,000, which by then had crossed the Potomac River into Maryland and marched on into southern Pennsylvania.

Battle of Gettysburg Begins: July 1

Upon learning that the Army of the Potomac was on its way, Lee planned to assemble his army in the prosperous crossroads town of Gettysburg, 35 miles southwest of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. One of the Confederate divisions in A.P. Hill's command approached the town in search of supplies early on July 1, only to find that two Union cavalry brigades had arrived the previous day. As the bulk of both armies headed toward Gettysburg, Confederate forces (led by Hill and Richard Ewell) were able to drive the outnumbered Federal defenders back through town to Cemetery Hill, located a half mile to the south. 

Seeking to press his advantage before more Union troops could arrive, Lee gave discretionary orders to attack Cemetery Hill to Ewell, who had taken command of the Army of Northern Virginia's Second Corps after Lee's most trusted general, Thomas J. "Stonewall" Jackson, was mortally wounded at Chancellorsville. Ewell declined to order the attack, considering the Federal position too strong; his reticence would earn him many unfavorable comparisons to the great Stonewall. By dusk, a Union corps under Winfield Scott Hancock had arrived and extended the defensive line along Cemetery Ridge to the hill known as Little Round Top; three more Union corps arrived overnight to strengthen its defenses.

Battle of Gettysburg, Day 2: July 2

As the next day dawned, the Union Army had established strong positions from Culp's Hill to Cemetery Ridge. Lee assessed his enemy's positions and determined--against the advice of his defensively minded second-in-command, James Longstreet--to attack the Federals where they stood. He ordered Longstreet to lead an attack on the Union left, while Ewell's corps would strike the right, near Culp's Hill. Though his orders were to attack as early in the day as possible, Longstreet didn't get his men into position until 4 pm, when they opened fire on the Union corps commanded by Daniel Sickles. 

Over the next several hours, bloody fighting raged along Sickles' line, which stretched from the nest of boulders known as Devil's Den into a peach orchard, as well as in a nearby wheat field and on the slopes of Little Round Top. Thanks to fierce fighting by one Minnesota regiment, the Federals were able to hold Little Round Top, but lost the orchard, field and Devil's Den; Sickles himself was seriously wounded. Ewell's men had advanced on the Union forces at Culp's Hill and East Cemetery Hill in coordination with Longstreet's 4 pm attack, but Union forces had stalled their attack by dusk. Both armies suffered extremely heavy losses on July 2, with 9,000 or more casualties on each side. The combined casualty total from two days of fighting came to nearly 35,000, the largest two-day toll of the war.

Battle of Gettysburg, Day 3: July 3

Early on the morning of July 3, Union forces of the Twelfth Army Corps pushed back a Confederate threat against Culp's Hill after a seven-hour firefight and regained their strong position. Believing his men had been on the brink of victory the day before, Lee decided to send three divisions (preceded by an artillery barrage) against the Union center on Cemetery Ridge. Fewer than 15,000 troops, led by a division under George Pickett, would be tasked with marching some three-quarters of a mile across open fields to attack dug-in Union infantry positions. 

Despite Longstreet's protests, Lee was determined, and the attack--later known as "Pickett's Charge"--went forward around 3 pm, after an artillery bombardment by some 150 Confederate guns. Union infantry opened fire on the advancing rebels from behind stone walls, while regiments from Vermont, New York and Ohio hit both of the enemy's flanks. Caught from all sides, barely half of the Confederates survived, and Pickett's division lost two-thirds of its men. As the survivors stumbled back to their opening position, Lee and Longstreet scrambled to shore up their defensive line after the failed assault. 

Battle of Gettysburg: Aftermath and Impact

His hopes of a victorious invasion of the North dashed, Lee waited for a Union counterattack on July 4, but it never came. That night, in heavy rain, the Confederate general withdrew his decimated army toward Virginia. Though the cautious Meade would be criticized for not pursuing the enemy after Gettysburg, the battle was a crushing defeat for the Confederacy. Union casualties in the battle numbered 23,000, while the Confederates had lost some 28,000 men--more than a third of Lee's army. The North rejoiced while the South mourned, its hopes for foreign recognition of the Confederacy erased. 

Demoralized by the defeat at Gettysburg, Lee offered his resignation to President Jefferson Davis, but was refused. Though the great Confederate general would go on to win other victories, the Battle of Gettysburg (combined with Ulysses S. Grant's victory at Vicksburg, also on July 4) irrevocably turned the tide of the Civil War in the Union’s favor.

___

The Gettysburg Address followed November 19 that year at the Gettysburg National Cemetery.  In just 272 words, President Abraham Lincoln eloquently transformed the cause of the Union into a struggle for liberty and equality.  Below is the speech, one of the most famous in the history of the United States by any president, and certainly within that elite group the shortest (Courtesy of Abraham Lincoln Online): 

(Above: Physical copy of the Gettysburg Address.)

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

___ 

(Above: Abraham Lincoln, 16th president of the United States, and author/orator of the Gettysburg Address.)

On June 1, 1865, Senator Charles Sumner commented on what is now considered the most famous speech by our nation's 16th president. In his eulogy on the slain president, he called it a "monumental act." He said Lincoln was mistaken that "the world will little note, nor long remember what we say here." Rather, the Bostonian remarked: 

(Above: Sen. Charles Sumner of Massachusetts.)

"The world noted at once what he said, and will never cease to remember it. The battle itself was less important than the speech."

Whether it was or not is irrelevant.  What is known is that on at least two instances, a failure to win the major battle in one of our nation's two greatest wars on domestic soil would have proven more than disastrous to the American way of life.  In fact, had there not been a victory at Gettysburg, as there was at Yorktown, Virginia, nearly 82 years before, the United States of America would not exist as we know it today.

(Above: Dead bodies at the Battle of Gettysburg.)

Your Tax Dollars at Work: What the Obama Administration is Costing the American People, Plus the Arrogance of Michelle Obama

(Above: Photograph of the White House.  Courtesy of  United Liberty)

It is surprising to me that I am just now getting around to discussing the president's cost to the American taxpayer.  We know he has raised taxes on two different occasions just this year: the first being in the Fiscal Cliff agreement where he essentially forced the GOP into a bad situation of either accepting his terms or enduring the dubious distinction of having to accept the responsibility for a government shutdown, while the second time coming as part of his 2014 budget, the first he has ever produced while president. Unfortunately, while the Republicans in Congress could have fought the president on this matter, they would no doubt have been viewed as the guilty party involved as it appears that nothing President Obama does, even when he breaks the law much like Bill Clinton, seems to affect him.

So, what are the various costs incurred by the president?  Well, the one I wish to discuss is the startling difference between what it cost to sustain the First Family in 2011 and the British Royal Family that same year.  We know that Britain's days of "the sun never setting" on its empire have long since faded into the sunset, yet the nation is still one of the most prosperous on Earth.

There are a couple of stories I will share with you that discuss the spending profligacy of the administration and his family.  They are disgusting, and must be reined in.  We continue to have our taxes increased dramatically while he lives like, well, a king, with absolute impunity (Courtesy of New American):

For all his talk about cutting the deficit, President Barack Obama has been anything but shy about spending taxpayers’ money lavishly — and not just on favored political constituencies. According to the Daily Caller, last year taxpayers had to fork over a whopping $1.4 billion just to pay the expenses of the president, his family, and his staff.

British taxpayers, meanwhile, were soaked for a relatively trifling $57.8 million to keep the House of Windsor in tea and crumpets.

While Obama is only the latest in a long line of chief executives to enjoy the high life at taxpayer expense, “the amount of money spent on the first family … has risen tremendously under the Obama administration and needs to be reined in,” Robert Keith Gray, author of Presidential Perks Gone Royal, told the Daily Caller.

The $1.4 billion, Gray said, represents the “total cost of the presidency,” including the tab for the “biggest staff in history at the highest wages ever,” a 50-percent rise in the number of appointed “czars,” and an Air Force One “running with the frequency of a scheduled air line.”

Gray knows whereof he speaks. He has served in various Republican administrations, most notably that of President Dwight Eisenhower, where he rose to the post of Secretary of the Cabinet. If he thinks presidential expenses are getting out of hand, he just might be onto something.

The president’s salary accounts for $400,000 of that $1.4 billion. In addition, he has a $50,000 annual expense account, a $100,000 travel account, a $19,000 entertainment budget, and another $1 million for “unanticipated needs,” according to Gray. (How many taxpayers can get any amount of money, let alone $1 million, from their employers on demand?)

Among the other perks of the Obama presidency:

1. Appointed staff not requiring Senate confirmation, including 226 senior staffers (of 469 total) making over $100,000 a year and 43 “czars”
2. Free vacations at Camp David, estimated to cost $295,000 per night when transportation and personnel costs are included
3. A movie projectionist who lives and sleeps at the White House to be available at the president’s beck and call — a position that has not been eliminated despite the existence of cable TV, DVDs, and streaming Internet video
4. Many paid travel and security expenses during vacations, such as the $75,000-a-day tab for First Lady Michelle Obama’s five-day trip to Spain in 2010 (in the span of one year she took 42 vacation days)
5. A dog handler who reportedly earned $102,000 in 2011

The thing that bothers Gray the most, however, “is the use of taxpayer funds to abet [Obama’s] re-election,” he told the Daily Caller. Every time Obama hops aboard Air Force One to attend a campaign event, taxpayers take it on the chin. The president’s campaign pays the equivalent of a first-class commercial airline ticket for certain passengers; the remaining costs are borne by taxpayers. And those costs are considerable: ABC News reports that Air Force One runs up a bill of almost $180,000 per flight hour.

“When the United States’ billion-dollar air armada is being used politically, is it fair to taxpayers that we only be reimbursed by the president’s campaign committee for the value of one first-class commercial ticket for each passenger who is deemed aboard ‘for political purposes?’ ” Gray asked in his book.

“And is that bargain-price advantage fair to those opposing an incumbent president?”

___

This article was published on September 28, 2012 during the height of the presidential campaign.  However, as we have seen repeatedly over the decades, when a politician promises to deliver handouts to those who vote him or her into office, he or she usually gets elected.  There is no such thing as a classless society because the Left will not allow for that happen, even if it means it becomes painfully obvious that our elected officials are spending extravagantly on items they should not while the common man continues to grow poorer beneath the weight of the government's excesses. 

***

The Obamas traveled overseas twice in the past month.  The first trip was to Ireland.  While in Belfast, Northern Ireland, the president proved to the world that he is an enemy to any and all Christians as he harshly criticized Catholic and Protestant schools, citing they are "divisive."  Of course, if someone in the U.S. had said the same thing about an Islamic mosque being built in, say, the city of Murfreesboro just South of Nashville in Middle Tennessee, he or she would probably be arrested on federal charges of violating the Muslims at the mosque's right to free exercise of religion in accordance to the First Amendment.  This goes back to my stating that America is in the early stages of experiencing the creation of a state based upon a form of Apartheid.  

However, that is not all that is controversial about the Obama family's visit to Ireland.  Britain's The Daily Mail reports on the cost and the rather-extraordinary and elaborate arrangements planned and made for not only the president, but his prima donna wife who will be discussed at even greater length when I get around to her rather-shallow comments about her living conditions at the White House, as well as his children Malia and Sasha.

The following is the article from the British news agency whose link is posted above:

Obama under fire as he turns the G8 Summit in Ireland into a family trip 'that costs U.S. taxpayers $5.2million for just two days abroad'

• Michelle, and two daughters, Malia, 14, and Sasha, 11 toured tourist attractions in Dublin on Monday
• First Lady in $3,300-a-night suite at lavish Shelbourne Hotel
• Michelle's entourage takes 30 rooms at the 5-star hotel
• President Obama remains in Northern Ireland at the G8 Summit
• Two-day trip is expected to cost the U.S. taxpayer an estimated $5.2million 
• Arrived amid biggest security operation ever mounted in Northern Ireland

By LOUISE BOYLE and JILL REILLY

PUBLISHED: 21:31 EST, 17 June 2013 | UPDATED: 21:41 EST, 17 June 2013

President Obama may be earning the favor of his Irish ancestors by attending the G8 conference with his family but it is stirring the ire of American taxpayers outraged by the cost of the trip.

The two-day trip around the Republic is expected to cost U.S. taxpayers more than $5.2 million.

The President, his wife and daughters touched down in Belfast amid the biggest security operation ever mounted in Northern Ireland.

While Obama holds talks with other world leaders at the G8 summit in Northern Ireland, Michelle and their girls headed to the Republic.

Under watchful eyes: The police presence throughout Ireland, including in front of Dublin's Gaiety Theatre while the First Lady and her two daughters are inside (pictured), is at it's highest levels for the G8 summit

Glamor: Michelle Obama and her daughters are believed to be staying in a $3,300-a-night suite at the Shelbourne Hotel in Dublin's city center

Mrs Obama and her daughters are staying at the Shelbourne Hotel and according to the Irish Independent, her entourage has booked out 30 rooms in the five-star accommodation.

The Shelbourne Hotel is one of Dublin's oldest and sits in the center of the city overlooking the public park St Stephen's Green. 

 

More...

• Isn't the G8 supposed to alleviate global tensions? Obama and Putin put on deeply awkward show of unity after disastrous meeting at summit

• The First Lady... of funny faces: Malia Obama plays up for the cameras (again) as she reduces Michelle and Sasha to fits of giggles during G8 visit to Ireland

It is understood that Michelle will stay in the luxurious $3,300-a-night Princess Grace suite.

A team of staff were out cleaning the front of the building in preparation for the First family's arrival as the usual swarm of FBI agents hovered around.  

Moving on: While Barack Obama holds talks with other world leaders at the G8 summit in Northern Ireland, Mrs Obama and their children are due to visit the Republic

Though the White House does not release the specifics on how much the trip actually cost, the $5.2 million estimate comes based on the reported cost of the first couple's one-day trip to Ireland in 2011 which tallied a $2.6 million bill.

This two-day trip is likely to cost double that amount taking into account that his daughters now need a security detail and the family have split up into two locations.  

For this trip, Air Force One arrived at Aldergrove International Airport, 20 miles north of the city, where the President emerged from the plane with his family.

On Monday evening, the First Lady made a short speech before watching a special performance of Riverdance at the Gaiety Theatre, a short distance from her city center hotel.

Thrilled, girls? First Lady Michelle Obama and her daughters, Sasha (center) and Malia (right) tour the Old Library Building at Trinity College in Dublin on Monday

Don't get too excited! The Obama daughters study the 'College Harp' - Ireland's oldest harp dating back from the 15th century and on which Ireland's national emblem is based on

On arrival at the Waterfront, the family were greeted by Northern Ireland's First and Deputy First Ministers Peter Robinson and Martin McGuinness.

Roads into and out of Belfast were closed to facilitate the president's visit.

Hundreds of police 4x4s lined the streets, while the Police Service of Northern Ireland helicopter patrolled the skies over the city.

Thousands of extra police officers were deployed to the province ahead of the G8 summit.

Touch down: US President Barack Obama arrived in Belfast along with his two daughters and wife Michelle who looked stylish in a Burberry coat

Holding hands: Barack Obama disembarks from Air Force One with his daughter Sasha, 11

High profile: Roads into and out of Belfast were closed to facilitate the president's visit

Trips on Air Force One cost the government about $180,000 per flight hour.

According to a book published last year Obama and his family cost the taxpayer $1.4 billion per year.

This is far from the first presidential trip that prompted criticism among conservatives, as Mr Obama's recent appearances in Israel cost taxpayers an estimated $10.9 million.

*** 

And then there's Africa.  This makes you think of the legendary Allan Quartermain and the legendary Ernest Hemingway short story, The Snows of Kilimanjaro.  But in the case of President Obama and his arrogant wife, it was "homecoming" of sorts according to the greetings being bestowed upon them by onlookers as well as a certain comment made by Michelle.

The following article from the conservative-libertarian online site United Liberty discusses how American taxpayers are footing more than $100 million in the trip's costs, an astounding total even by this president's standards.  For Obama, the total means little because he knows that there will always be a source of money from which to withdraw funds, which means the only thing he has to do is continue raising taxes:

House Democrat unloads on White House over $100 million Africa trip

Fri, 06/21/2013 - 3:01pm | posted by Jason Pye

The White House is beginning to feel pressure over President Barack Obama’s planned $100 million trip to Africa — and it’s not just coming from Republicans.

The trip comes despite the Obama Administration’s frequent complaints about the sequester, which took effect in March. Rep. John Barrow, a Democrat from Georgia, criticized the White House for this extravagant spending in a short speech from the House floor on Thursday.

Though he was errant in his criticism of the sequester, which merely cuts the rate of spending growth over the next 10 years, Barrow noted that the cost of the trip is roughly the impact the spending cuts will have on Georgia’s economy.

“Very soon thousands of folks in my district in Georgia, and even more across the state, will be furloughed as a result of the budget sequester. Studies have shown that the sequester will cost the Georgia economy approximately $107 million,” said Barrow. “Meanwhile, reports circulated this week that President Obama’s upcoming trip to Africa will cost the taxpayers nearly $100 million.”

“Mr. Speaker, no one here questions the need for security for our Commander-in-Chief. But we do question the need for such expensive trips when so many folks across the country are being forced to cut back because Congress can’t get its act together,” continued Barrow. “A trip of this magnitude isn’t unusual, but these are hard times.  One hundred million dollars could be better used to keep folks on the job.

“I urge the President, and everyone at the federal level, to lead by example, and not take the fact that Congress can’t get it’s act together and rub that in the faces of hard working Americans, he pointedly added.

Here’s video of Barrow’s speech:

___

I will close by providing you with a quote that will follow Michelle Obama to the grave (Courtesy of The Blaze):

BUSINESS

MICHELLE OBAMA: LIVING IN WHITE HOUSE IS SOMETIMES LIKE BEING IN A ‘REALLY NICE PRISON’

Jul. 2, 2013 1:12pm Becket Adams

Because it can sometimes be a little confining, living in the White House is sometimes like living in a “really nice prison,” First Lady Michelle Obama said Tuesday, according to remarks sent to the press.

Her “prison” comments were made during a discussion with former First Lady Laura Bush and NPR’s Cokie Roberts at the African First Ladies Summit in Tanzania.

Roberts pointed out during the discussion that Martha Washington, wife of President George Washington, also likened the life of the First Lady to that of a state prisoner.

“Martha Washington, our first First Lady, wrote in the first year that she was First Lady, she wrote to her niece that she felt like a ‘Chief State Prisoner,’” Roberts said.

“But she was able to do good — she lobbied for all of those veterans that she had been to camp with through the Revolutionary War.  And people don’t realize that first ladies have been doing that kind of thing from Martha Washington,” she added.

First Lady Michelle Obama agreed that the role can sometimes be “confining,” but stressed that she loves the job.

“I always joke that we have probably the best jobs in the world because, unlike our husbands who have to react and respond to crisis on a minute-by-minute basis — they come into office with a wonderful, profound agenda, and then they’re faced with the reality,” Michelle Obama said.

“On the other hand, we get to work on what we’re passionate about. And I think that that’s something that I would encourage all first ladies to never lose sight of.  You have an opportunity to speak to your passions and to really design and be very strategic about the issues you care most about. And I just found it just a very freeing and liberating opportunity,” she added.

“No state prisoner?” Roberts joked.

“No, there are prison elements to it,” Mrs. Obama responded. “But it’s a really nice prison, so –”

“But with a chef,” former First Lady Laura Bush reminded the crowd.

“You can’t complain,” Michelle Obama said. “But there is definitely elements that are confining.”