I was in the lockerroom of my local gym this week when I heard two men talking about how America will be moving in the next few years from a country relying on energy from fossil fuels to relying on renewable energy sources.
After chuckling to myself, I nearly walked over and slapped those fools.
Those who believe that renewable energy sources will power America might as well believe in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny. At this point in the development of these energy sources and the technologies that support them, their widespread use is nothing more than fantasy, just like those fictional characters loved by so many children.
Let's say that America decided that that it wanted to rid itself of all fossil fuels, relying instead on solar and wind to power our country. There are a number of reasons why this will not happen in my lifetime and perhaps even during my children's lifetimes.
First of all, the sun doesn't shine 24 hours a day, and battery technology doesn't exist to store the amount of electricity needed to power a small city, let alone a metropolis. As a result, one could possibly power a city using solar energy during the day, but at night that city would be in the dark. The renewable energy advocates would counter by saying that they would simply build enough wind turbines to power the country at night when the solar panels aren't able to generate electricity.
There's are a number of problems with that solution, including the fact that wind turbines on average are able to produce electricity only about 40 percent of the time. The rest of the time, though, wind isn't sufficient to generate electricity.
The same renewable energy advocates would counter by saying that surely a mix of solar panels and wind turbines spread across the country could power this great land. Once again, logic prevails.
In order to achieve this, America would need to build six or seven times its needed generating capacity in order to provide a somewhat reliable source of electricity. With renewable sources already costing two, three or more times the current cost of electricity generated predominantly by fossil fuels, one would see his or electricity bill increase from $100 per month to $1,000, $1,500 or even more per month, just to pay for redundancies to offset the loss of solar power at night, or the loss of wind generation when the wind isn't blowing sufficiently to turn a large number of the wind turbines.
Those same renewable energy advocates might then say that America should simply turn to wind and solar to power maybe 20% or 25% of the country's energy needs. Once again, America would have to build sufficient redundancies in coal, nuclear and natural gas generation to power the country when these renewables aren't available. And once again, the cost of electricity would skyrocket because of having to pay twice for the same generation.
Those same renewable energy advocates don't even consider the consequences of an America with electricity costs that increase two, three, four times or even more. The result would be that American families would be even harder pressed to make ends meet, and significantly more manufacturing jobs would be driven overseas to countries relying on cheap, reliable sources such as coal to generate their electricity. In other words, Americans wouldn't be able to pay their electricity bills because of the rapidly rising rates and the fact that millions more would be out of work.
To prove my point even further, consider a community that needs 1,000 megawatts of electricity to meet the energy demands of its residents. The community builds 1,000 megawatts of solar capacity, but then has to build another 1,000 megawatts of wind capacity in order to rely on those renewables. But to ensure that there will be sufficient energy when needed, the community will also need to build 1,000 megawatts of capacity powered through traditinal fossil fuels, so that energy is available at night and when the wind isn't blowing hard enough to turn the turbines. In short, in order to ensure a reliable supply of 1,000 megawatts of electricity, this community would have to build three times that capacity, which would cause electric rates to increase significantly for residents and result in the loss of jobs to communities with much lower electric rates.
The fact is that every energy source has its positives and negatives, and America should develop an "all of the above" strategy to meet its energy needs. But the marketplace, not the government, should determine which energy sources power our country so that America can remain competitive in a global marketplace.
Just as the use of coal results in air pollution, even with the most sophisticated pollution-control equipment installed on power stations, natural gas also has its downside. Prices of natural gas have fluctuated wildly in the past, and the pipeline explosion this past week in West Virginia reminded us of another downside -- natural gas can explode. Everyone knows about the dangers of nuclear power, thanks to Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and the failure in Japan.
Even the renewables have downsides. Solar panels are manufactured using extremely toxic chemicals, and once installed they disturb thousands of acres of land and result in the loss of habitat for animals. As for wind turbines, hundreds of thousands of migratory birds are already killed each year by the relatively small number of wind turbines in use across America now, and noise disturbs people living within a couple of miles of these large structures. People also complain about these large structures ruining the view in their picturesque communities.
Maybe one day renewables will power this country. But for now, believing that they will power America is much like believing in Santa Claus. It may be nice to believe for children, but reality takes over for the adults once the bills come due.
Sunday, December 16, 2012
The Voice of Reason: Do We Have a Revenue Problem or a Spending Problem?
The latest negotiations between the White House and Congress to avoid the fiscal cliff centers around the "balanced approach" supported by President Barack Obama during the recent campaign.
Now, the President seems to be focused almost entirely on raising taxes for the most successful Americans, while the Republicans seem to be touting the approach once favored but now seemingly abandoned by the President -- increasing revenue and making spending cuts. Without significant spending cuts, though, the Republican-controlled House simply will not agree to raise taxes on the highest-earning Americans. In contrast, the President has outlined a specific plan for raising taxes on Americans earning over $200,000 as individuals or for married couples earning over $250,000, but has avoided any details whatsoever on how he would cut the federal budget.
But does America have a revenue problem, or does it have a spending problem? If you're like me, once people begin talking about trillions upon trillions of dollars, it's nearly impossible to fathom. But once you put the debt into context in numbers that people can understand, you begin to see a much clearer picture.
If America were a household, and we took away five zeros to make the numbers manageable, we would be earning about $25,000 per year (total annual government revenue). This year, however, we will spend about $38,000 (national budget), which means that we had to put about $13,000 on our credit card (annual deficit), bringing our total credit card debt to about $164,000 (total national debt). This year, the interest alone on that debt will cost us about $4,500, nearly one-fifth of what we took in.
By taxing the most successful Americans more, the President will add about $16,000 to our household income over the next 10 years, which equates to a paltry $1,600 per year. However, his most recent budget projections show a deficit of at least $10,000 per year which will be added to our credit card debt. This means that by the end of his second term our total household debt will be well over $200,000. In just eight years, this President will have added about half -- $100,000 -- of our nation's total credit card debt. The interest alone on our debt will cost our household around $6,000 per year by 2016, if interest rates remain low.
Adding to this national financial mess is the fact that our entitlement programs are growing much faster than any increases in our revenue. Within two decades, the entitlement programs of Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare will consume 100% of annual revenue, leaving nothing for education, defense or anything else. If the trend of spending more than we take in continues, couple of decades the interest alone on our national debt will consume 100% of our annual revenue.
America is facing a fiscal cliff of increased taxes for nearly all Americans on January 1, 2013, if Congress and the President can't agree on a plan to extend the Bush-era tax cuts. Our nation faces a much bigger precipice -- a Grand Canyon-like cliff -- if we don't address the debt problem and growing entitlement programs that will bankrupt this country and send the entire world into a deep depression.
As one can see, America does not have a revenue problem. We simply have been spending, and continue to spend, money we just don't have.
This President has done more to bankrupt this country than any other President before him.
One way or another, though, this spending will stop -- either through managed budget cuts and a well-defined plan to cut our debt -- or through a bankruptcy and deep depression that will be much more painful for all Americans.
Now, the President seems to be focused almost entirely on raising taxes for the most successful Americans, while the Republicans seem to be touting the approach once favored but now seemingly abandoned by the President -- increasing revenue and making spending cuts. Without significant spending cuts, though, the Republican-controlled House simply will not agree to raise taxes on the highest-earning Americans. In contrast, the President has outlined a specific plan for raising taxes on Americans earning over $200,000 as individuals or for married couples earning over $250,000, but has avoided any details whatsoever on how he would cut the federal budget.
But does America have a revenue problem, or does it have a spending problem? If you're like me, once people begin talking about trillions upon trillions of dollars, it's nearly impossible to fathom. But once you put the debt into context in numbers that people can understand, you begin to see a much clearer picture.
If America were a household, and we took away five zeros to make the numbers manageable, we would be earning about $25,000 per year (total annual government revenue). This year, however, we will spend about $38,000 (national budget), which means that we had to put about $13,000 on our credit card (annual deficit), bringing our total credit card debt to about $164,000 (total national debt). This year, the interest alone on that debt will cost us about $4,500, nearly one-fifth of what we took in.
By taxing the most successful Americans more, the President will add about $16,000 to our household income over the next 10 years, which equates to a paltry $1,600 per year. However, his most recent budget projections show a deficit of at least $10,000 per year which will be added to our credit card debt. This means that by the end of his second term our total household debt will be well over $200,000. In just eight years, this President will have added about half -- $100,000 -- of our nation's total credit card debt. The interest alone on our debt will cost our household around $6,000 per year by 2016, if interest rates remain low.
Adding to this national financial mess is the fact that our entitlement programs are growing much faster than any increases in our revenue. Within two decades, the entitlement programs of Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare will consume 100% of annual revenue, leaving nothing for education, defense or anything else. If the trend of spending more than we take in continues, couple of decades the interest alone on our national debt will consume 100% of our annual revenue.
America is facing a fiscal cliff of increased taxes for nearly all Americans on January 1, 2013, if Congress and the President can't agree on a plan to extend the Bush-era tax cuts. Our nation faces a much bigger precipice -- a Grand Canyon-like cliff -- if we don't address the debt problem and growing entitlement programs that will bankrupt this country and send the entire world into a deep depression.
As one can see, America does not have a revenue problem. We simply have been spending, and continue to spend, money we just don't have.
This President has done more to bankrupt this country than any other President before him.
One way or another, though, this spending will stop -- either through managed budget cuts and a well-defined plan to cut our debt -- or through a bankruptcy and deep depression that will be much more painful for all Americans.
Saturday, December 8, 2012
The Voice of Reason: Why Many of Today's 20-Something Liberals Will Be Conservatives Tomorrow
So you're in college or have recently graduated from college. You have this Utopian view of what the world should be, that there should be no poor people, corporations are evil, profit is a four-letter word, rich people pay too little in taxes and conservatives are evil people who simply don't care about others. You've bought into messaging of President Barack Obama and the Democratic Party, like so many of your classmates.
I can see why you see the world this way. I had similar beliefs when I was 19, 20 and 21 years old, but then a funny thing happened to change my view of the world. I grew up, and so will you.
Once you start working and paying taxes, your beliefs will begin to change. And then once you marry and start raising a family your views will change even more dramatically. Let me explain why.
Once you graduate and start working, you will see the percentage of what you take home diminish as your income increases. As you work your way up the corporate ladder or build your own business, you will be asked to contribute more and more of what you earn to the federal government. Each year, as your income increases, you will pay more taxes to the point that you wonder whether government receives more of your paycheck than you do, once you add all of your federal, state and local taxes and fees together.
A few of your college classmates and friends will somehow never be able to find a good job, so they will rely on government checks to survive. A few will receive food stamps. A few will sign up and receive disability. Even more will receive welfare. You will realize that the difference between your success and their failure isn't that government didn't provide them with an equal opportunity. You will learn that the reason that they aren't successful is that they didn't work as hard or as long as you have.
After years of watching your hard-earned tax dollars support government programs that help the poor, you will see that the percentage of people living in poverty hasn't diminished. In fact, you see that as government programs expand, more people take advantage of them instead of working as you have.
You will also learn, whether you work for a company or build your own company, that people are employed because companies earn a profit. Without profit there will be no jobs. You may lose your job at an unprofitable company, or, if you own your own company, you may have to lay off a few of your workers because a new government regulation or an increase in your tax rate took away part of your profit.
You will learn that your savings and investments also rely on companies being profitable and growing. If companies are profitable and prosper, your investments will grow accordingly, but if they aren't successful, you see your nestegg grow smaller or disappear completely. You begin to realize that your retirement and the retirements of others rely on the ability of American businesses to grow and prosper. You will also see first-hand that government often puts unreasonable roadblocks in the way of companies being successful. You will learn, as I have over the years, that government is often the enemy of business.
And then when you marry and have children of your own, your views change even more. You become very protective of your offspring to the point that you don't want your children doing the same things that you may have done as a young person. You also realize that every dollar you send to government is a dollar that you can't save for their college, put food on the table or buy their clothes. You resent working so hard for so little of what you earn, while so many aren't working and receive the benefit of your tax dollars.
As you enter your 30s, you may begin admiring successful older people who give back to their communties in time and money. You will notice that the majority of these people are conservative. These people worked hard, built a successful business that employed people, providing them with a good wage, and now they want to give back even more to their community. They care deeply about others, and they share with you what they've learned -- that the only way to change people is to change their behavior and that handouts rarely if ever have a long-term impact. You listen and learn as these role models support programs in their community that help to move people out of poverty through efforts that help them to learn job skills and money management.
You may become involved in programs like Habitat for Humanity, which is exponentially more successful than government housing because people who receive houses through this non-profit have pride in their homes because they pay for them and help to build them. You begin to see that government, through what you once viewed as "kindness," often holds people back by giving them that handout, instead of providing them what they really need, which is a hand up out of poverty.
You now see the world in a much different way. You look back to your early 20s and your college years and begin to see how wrong you really were.
You realize that you're now a conservative.
I can see why you see the world this way. I had similar beliefs when I was 19, 20 and 21 years old, but then a funny thing happened to change my view of the world. I grew up, and so will you.
Once you start working and paying taxes, your beliefs will begin to change. And then once you marry and start raising a family your views will change even more dramatically. Let me explain why.
Once you graduate and start working, you will see the percentage of what you take home diminish as your income increases. As you work your way up the corporate ladder or build your own business, you will be asked to contribute more and more of what you earn to the federal government. Each year, as your income increases, you will pay more taxes to the point that you wonder whether government receives more of your paycheck than you do, once you add all of your federal, state and local taxes and fees together.
A few of your college classmates and friends will somehow never be able to find a good job, so they will rely on government checks to survive. A few will receive food stamps. A few will sign up and receive disability. Even more will receive welfare. You will realize that the difference between your success and their failure isn't that government didn't provide them with an equal opportunity. You will learn that the reason that they aren't successful is that they didn't work as hard or as long as you have.
After years of watching your hard-earned tax dollars support government programs that help the poor, you will see that the percentage of people living in poverty hasn't diminished. In fact, you see that as government programs expand, more people take advantage of them instead of working as you have.
You will also learn, whether you work for a company or build your own company, that people are employed because companies earn a profit. Without profit there will be no jobs. You may lose your job at an unprofitable company, or, if you own your own company, you may have to lay off a few of your workers because a new government regulation or an increase in your tax rate took away part of your profit.
You will learn that your savings and investments also rely on companies being profitable and growing. If companies are profitable and prosper, your investments will grow accordingly, but if they aren't successful, you see your nestegg grow smaller or disappear completely. You begin to realize that your retirement and the retirements of others rely on the ability of American businesses to grow and prosper. You will also see first-hand that government often puts unreasonable roadblocks in the way of companies being successful. You will learn, as I have over the years, that government is often the enemy of business.
And then when you marry and have children of your own, your views change even more. You become very protective of your offspring to the point that you don't want your children doing the same things that you may have done as a young person. You also realize that every dollar you send to government is a dollar that you can't save for their college, put food on the table or buy their clothes. You resent working so hard for so little of what you earn, while so many aren't working and receive the benefit of your tax dollars.
As you enter your 30s, you may begin admiring successful older people who give back to their communties in time and money. You will notice that the majority of these people are conservative. These people worked hard, built a successful business that employed people, providing them with a good wage, and now they want to give back even more to their community. They care deeply about others, and they share with you what they've learned -- that the only way to change people is to change their behavior and that handouts rarely if ever have a long-term impact. You listen and learn as these role models support programs in their community that help to move people out of poverty through efforts that help them to learn job skills and money management.
You may become involved in programs like Habitat for Humanity, which is exponentially more successful than government housing because people who receive houses through this non-profit have pride in their homes because they pay for them and help to build them. You begin to see that government, through what you once viewed as "kindness," often holds people back by giving them that handout, instead of providing them what they really need, which is a hand up out of poverty.
You now see the world in a much different way. You look back to your early 20s and your college years and begin to see how wrong you really were.
You realize that you're now a conservative.
Saturday, December 1, 2012
The Voice of Reason: Geithner Unveils President's Plan with a Straight Face
Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner unveiled President Obama's budget plan to Congress this week. The plan includes $1.6 trillion in tax increases over 10 years, a request for $50 billion in stimulus dollars and a promise to address out-of-control entitlement programs next year with $400 billion in cuts.
And he did it with a straight face.
The proposal made by the President's top money man was as laughable as it was unrealistic. In return for Republicans agreeing to raise income taxes on Americans earning more than $250,000 per year and increasing the rate on capital gains and dividends, the President has offered them a promise of $400 billion in entitlement cuts beginning at some point next year, but won't specify what they might be. In other words, cave in, Republicans, on taxes and then trust the President to do what he says he will do about cutting federal spending.
Does the President propose that the extra revenue be used to cut our deficit and our growing debt? Nope. That's where the President apparently plans to find funds for "investments" in education and other pet programs (i.e., Solyndra). The problem with the President's approach is that unless government spending is controlled, the extra revenue from higher taxes brought in one door will just go out another another door, instead of cutting our annual deficit and growing national debt. The problem is that the additional revenue from punishing higher taxes is much like a single grain of sand in a sandbox full of sand representing our fast-expanding debt.
It's clear that this President refuses to take on the tough budgetary issues, such as entitlement reform. Although the President hasn't put any specific proposal to cut entitlements on the negotiating table, he promises to do this in exchange for significant tax increases almost immediately. Clearly, if America is going to begin cutting its debt and reining in entitlement programs that will soon bankrupt the country, the Republicans will have to be the adults in the room. This line from a story in the New York Times describes the Democratic strategy: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/30/us/politics/fiscal-talks-in-congress-seem-to-reach-impasse.html?_r=0
Senate Democratic leaders left their meeting with Mr. Geithner ecstatic. If the Republicans want additional spending cuts in that down payment, the onus is on them to put them on the table, said Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader.
While the Democrats and the mainstream news media plan to blame the Republicans for any impasse that would cause painful, automatic cuts under sequestration, the truth is that the Democrats and the President haven't even begun negotiating in good faith. We're now exactly one month away from the fiscal cliff that will plunge America back into a deep recession, if not a depression.
At least now you know the truth.
And he did it with a straight face.
The proposal made by the President's top money man was as laughable as it was unrealistic. In return for Republicans agreeing to raise income taxes on Americans earning more than $250,000 per year and increasing the rate on capital gains and dividends, the President has offered them a promise of $400 billion in entitlement cuts beginning at some point next year, but won't specify what they might be. In other words, cave in, Republicans, on taxes and then trust the President to do what he says he will do about cutting federal spending.
Does the President propose that the extra revenue be used to cut our deficit and our growing debt? Nope. That's where the President apparently plans to find funds for "investments" in education and other pet programs (i.e., Solyndra). The problem with the President's approach is that unless government spending is controlled, the extra revenue from higher taxes brought in one door will just go out another another door, instead of cutting our annual deficit and growing national debt. The problem is that the additional revenue from punishing higher taxes is much like a single grain of sand in a sandbox full of sand representing our fast-expanding debt.
It's clear that this President refuses to take on the tough budgetary issues, such as entitlement reform. Although the President hasn't put any specific proposal to cut entitlements on the negotiating table, he promises to do this in exchange for significant tax increases almost immediately. Clearly, if America is going to begin cutting its debt and reining in entitlement programs that will soon bankrupt the country, the Republicans will have to be the adults in the room. This line from a story in the New York Times describes the Democratic strategy: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/30/us/politics/fiscal-talks-in-congress-seem-to-reach-impasse.html?_r=0
Senate Democratic leaders left their meeting with Mr. Geithner ecstatic. If the Republicans want additional spending cuts in that down payment, the onus is on them to put them on the table, said Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader.
While the Democrats and the mainstream news media plan to blame the Republicans for any impasse that would cause painful, automatic cuts under sequestration, the truth is that the Democrats and the President haven't even begun negotiating in good faith. We're now exactly one month away from the fiscal cliff that will plunge America back into a deep recession, if not a depression.
At least now you know the truth.
Sunday, November 25, 2012
The Voice of Reason: Don't You Wish America Was More Like Korea?
Over the week of Thanksgiving, I traveled to South Korea to spend time with my oldest son, who is teaching English at an elementary school there.
What amazed me most about the experience more than anything else is that capitalism, the bastion of free people everywhere, is alive and well in Korea. Yes, Korea.
As I walked down the streets of Pyeongtaek, Anjung and Seoul, I witnessed a bustling economy with large and small shops everywhere. People even sold their wares on the sidewalk, from garlic to fried fish, vegetables and craft items. During my week in Korea, I ate at several restaurants where my dining mates and I cooked meat on a small grill within the table in front of us. After we determined that the meat was done, we combined the small pieces of beef, pork, chicken and lamb with vegetables and sauces provided by the restaurants into a tasty wrap.
I also experienced a country with very little crime, a country in which one can safely walk down the street at night without being mugged. I also saw a country where families regularly eat meals together and a level of respect is inherent in the culture. Instead of saying "yes ma'am" or "yes, sir" as we did growing up in America, Koreans show respect with gestures such as a simple bow or by receiving something from someone by using two hands.
I also did not see a single person sleeping on the street, or even one person begging for my change. I did see Koreans heading to work early in the morning to factories making automobiles or high-tech products, many of which we purchase in America (i.e., Samsung, Hyundai, Kia). I also saw very small yards in the middle of the city turned into gardens in order to grow cabbage, one of the staples of the Korean diet. I also witnessed Koreans working diligently on a housing project, without the typical "one person working, two people standing around" mentality we see on many projects in America. Clearly, Koreans are very industrious people with a strong work ethic.
As I was experiencing Korea, I began to remember that this was what it was like in the U.S. in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, when parents allowed their children to play in their neighborhoods after dark, when people had respect for one another, when people actually worked hard and didn't expect a handout from their government, and when anyone in America could start a business without worrying about all of the government red tape and outlandish lawsuits that are killing our economy today.
What would the county or state health department think about allowing customers to cook their own raw meat until it is safe to eat? What would attorneys think about the dangers of potential lawsuits arising from customers burning themselves on grills or eating meat that isn't properly cooked? Could these restaurants even obtain insurance in America? How would our city leaders treat those street vendors who are simply trying to make a living for their families? What would the unions think about a workforce that isn't bloated?
Sadly, what I witnessed in Korea would not be allowed to occur in America today. Attorneys would close down those restaurants, if health departments didn't prevent them from opening in the first place. Cities certainly would not allow so many street vendors, and our unions certainly would not allow the level of work activity seen on Korean job sites.
While I certainly understand safety and environmental regulations that protect the health and welfare of a country's population, I strongly believe that America has taken them too far. Regulations are so complex and cumbersome today that most small businesses have to hire an accountant and attorney before they open their doors to their first customers.
Sadly, as I was boarding my plane home, I began to wish that America was more like Korea. Yes, Korea.
What amazed me most about the experience more than anything else is that capitalism, the bastion of free people everywhere, is alive and well in Korea. Yes, Korea.
As I walked down the streets of Pyeongtaek, Anjung and Seoul, I witnessed a bustling economy with large and small shops everywhere. People even sold their wares on the sidewalk, from garlic to fried fish, vegetables and craft items. During my week in Korea, I ate at several restaurants where my dining mates and I cooked meat on a small grill within the table in front of us. After we determined that the meat was done, we combined the small pieces of beef, pork, chicken and lamb with vegetables and sauces provided by the restaurants into a tasty wrap.
I also experienced a country with very little crime, a country in which one can safely walk down the street at night without being mugged. I also saw a country where families regularly eat meals together and a level of respect is inherent in the culture. Instead of saying "yes ma'am" or "yes, sir" as we did growing up in America, Koreans show respect with gestures such as a simple bow or by receiving something from someone by using two hands.
I also did not see a single person sleeping on the street, or even one person begging for my change. I did see Koreans heading to work early in the morning to factories making automobiles or high-tech products, many of which we purchase in America (i.e., Samsung, Hyundai, Kia). I also saw very small yards in the middle of the city turned into gardens in order to grow cabbage, one of the staples of the Korean diet. I also witnessed Koreans working diligently on a housing project, without the typical "one person working, two people standing around" mentality we see on many projects in America. Clearly, Koreans are very industrious people with a strong work ethic.
As I was experiencing Korea, I began to remember that this was what it was like in the U.S. in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, when parents allowed their children to play in their neighborhoods after dark, when people had respect for one another, when people actually worked hard and didn't expect a handout from their government, and when anyone in America could start a business without worrying about all of the government red tape and outlandish lawsuits that are killing our economy today.
What would the county or state health department think about allowing customers to cook their own raw meat until it is safe to eat? What would attorneys think about the dangers of potential lawsuits arising from customers burning themselves on grills or eating meat that isn't properly cooked? Could these restaurants even obtain insurance in America? How would our city leaders treat those street vendors who are simply trying to make a living for their families? What would the unions think about a workforce that isn't bloated?
Sadly, what I witnessed in Korea would not be allowed to occur in America today. Attorneys would close down those restaurants, if health departments didn't prevent them from opening in the first place. Cities certainly would not allow so many street vendors, and our unions certainly would not allow the level of work activity seen on Korean job sites.
While I certainly understand safety and environmental regulations that protect the health and welfare of a country's population, I strongly believe that America has taken them too far. Regulations are so complex and cumbersome today that most small businesses have to hire an accountant and attorney before they open their doors to their first customers.
Sadly, as I was boarding my plane home, I began to wish that America was more like Korea. Yes, Korea.
Thursday, November 15, 2012
The Voice of Reason: Capitalism for Dummies (or Liberals)
When my youngest son was probably 10, I thought I would give him a lesson in capitalism.
I placed 25 pennies out on the table in front of us, and divided the pennies into five groups of five pennies each. I told my son that each group of five pennies represented a company owned by one person, with each company hiring dozens of workers that receive paychecks.
Next, I added three pennies to each group, telling my son that these additional pennies signified profit earned by those companies. Next, I took one penny away from each group, saying that this represented the taxes paid by each company on that profit. With the profit that was left, 10 pennies in total, I divided them into two additional groups of five pennies each, telling my son that this signified that the owner used the profit to created two more businesses that hired people.
I then added three additional pennies to each of the seven groups of pennies, signifying profit earned, and then took one penny away as their taxes. With the additional 14 pennies of profit left, I created two more groups of five pennies each, and put aside the other four pennies to form yet another company, once we were able to earn enough profit to form another company of five pennies.
We continued the exercise until my son realized that profit was being used to create more profit and thus more businesses, and that with each new company, more and more people were being put to work. I also explained that the taxes paid by the company helped to support government programs for the poor, our military and many other programs that needed money to operate. He learned that as we grew those companies and earned more profit, more taxes were being paid and more people were being put to work. I also explained that each of those workers paid taxes, on top of the taxes that were being paid by the companies.
Next I returned the pennies back to where they were before the first profit was added -- five groups of five pennies each. Once more I placed three additional pennies into each group as profit, but then took two pennies away in taxes from each group instead of just one. As a result, our total remaining profit from the five groups was only five pennies, which I split off into one other company that I told my son was able to hire employees.
We continued the exercise, taking two pennies of profit away each round, watching our companies grow much more slowly this time and thus fewer people being put to work by those companies.
I asked my son what was the difference between taking two pennies away and taking one penny away for taxes.
"You don't have as many pennies left to form another company," he said.
"And what happened to the number of new jobs we were able to create?" I asked.
"You only were able to form one instead of two and the companies didn't grow as fast, so there were fewer jobs," he replied.
He also recognized that fewer employees meant fewer people actually paying taxes, on top of the taxes that the companies paid.
With that small pile of pennies, I was able to give my 10 year old a lesson in capitalism. He now understood that more money taken away to pay taxes means less money to build and grow businesses and thus fewer employees.
For some reason, most Americans today don't understand what I was able to explain very clearly to a boy who wasn't even a teenager.
I have to think that if more Americans understood the basic principles of capitalism, Barack Obama would never have been reelected because of his "make the rich pay their fair share" platform, which seems to be his only plan to improve our economy. More people would understand that higher taxes means less money to grow businesses and hire more employees.
If this lesson worked with a 10 year old, maybe it will even work with liberals? The only problem with this simple demonstration is that it would have to be dumbed down even further for Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi.
I placed 25 pennies out on the table in front of us, and divided the pennies into five groups of five pennies each. I told my son that each group of five pennies represented a company owned by one person, with each company hiring dozens of workers that receive paychecks.
Next, I added three pennies to each group, telling my son that these additional pennies signified profit earned by those companies. Next, I took one penny away from each group, saying that this represented the taxes paid by each company on that profit. With the profit that was left, 10 pennies in total, I divided them into two additional groups of five pennies each, telling my son that this signified that the owner used the profit to created two more businesses that hired people.
I then added three additional pennies to each of the seven groups of pennies, signifying profit earned, and then took one penny away as their taxes. With the additional 14 pennies of profit left, I created two more groups of five pennies each, and put aside the other four pennies to form yet another company, once we were able to earn enough profit to form another company of five pennies.
We continued the exercise until my son realized that profit was being used to create more profit and thus more businesses, and that with each new company, more and more people were being put to work. I also explained that the taxes paid by the company helped to support government programs for the poor, our military and many other programs that needed money to operate. He learned that as we grew those companies and earned more profit, more taxes were being paid and more people were being put to work. I also explained that each of those workers paid taxes, on top of the taxes that were being paid by the companies.
Next I returned the pennies back to where they were before the first profit was added -- five groups of five pennies each. Once more I placed three additional pennies into each group as profit, but then took two pennies away in taxes from each group instead of just one. As a result, our total remaining profit from the five groups was only five pennies, which I split off into one other company that I told my son was able to hire employees.
We continued the exercise, taking two pennies of profit away each round, watching our companies grow much more slowly this time and thus fewer people being put to work by those companies.
I asked my son what was the difference between taking two pennies away and taking one penny away for taxes.
"You don't have as many pennies left to form another company," he said.
"And what happened to the number of new jobs we were able to create?" I asked.
"You only were able to form one instead of two and the companies didn't grow as fast, so there were fewer jobs," he replied.
He also recognized that fewer employees meant fewer people actually paying taxes, on top of the taxes that the companies paid.
With that small pile of pennies, I was able to give my 10 year old a lesson in capitalism. He now understood that more money taken away to pay taxes means less money to build and grow businesses and thus fewer employees.
For some reason, most Americans today don't understand what I was able to explain very clearly to a boy who wasn't even a teenager.
I have to think that if more Americans understood the basic principles of capitalism, Barack Obama would never have been reelected because of his "make the rich pay their fair share" platform, which seems to be his only plan to improve our economy. More people would understand that higher taxes means less money to grow businesses and hire more employees.
If this lesson worked with a 10 year old, maybe it will even work with liberals? The only problem with this simple demonstration is that it would have to be dumbed down even further for Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi.
Sunday, November 11, 2012
The Voice of Reason: What a Difference a Generation Makes
Over the weekend, I thought back to the tumultuous days of the 1960s and early 1970s.
I remember the images on my black and white television of those anti-war protests all over the U.S., with young people in the tens of thousands marching in various cities and occupying college administration buildings. Young people marched on the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago, protesting the Vietnam War and our federal government. They were met by police, who used mace indiscriminately on protestors and bystanders. The protestors chanted, "The Whole World's Watching," as television cameras captured images of the police fighting back the protestors.
The young people in those crowds were the offspring of those who experienced World War II, a generation that nearly saw its rights taken away by the Germans, Japanese and Italians. Many of those young people had parents who were killed or injured in World War II, and they also had many friends and family members who were either injured or killed in the Vietnam War. With the military draft still in force, these young people certainly had skin in the game, so to speak. They protested the Vietnam War with a passion, perhaps because at any time they could be forced by their government to fight in a war they didn't feel was necessary or just.
Although I was a little too young to participate in those protests, my father was seriously injured in World War II and had to live with pain every single day for the rest of his life. I knew a lot of young men from my hometown who never made it home from Vietnam. I learned from my father, who grew up in the Great Depression, that our rights were worth worth fighting for, even if it meant giving up your own life.
During this time period, young people, more than any other age group, questioned the decisions and motivations of our federal government, and rightly so. Young reporters Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward of the Washington Post were among those from this age group who doggedly asked tough questions and uncovered sources within the federal government in order to report the truth about the Watergate break-in and subsequent coverup. Their reporting, and the reporting of others, forced a President, Richard Nixon, to resign, not because of the original burgulary of political offices at the Watergate Hotel, but because he was deeply involved in the coverup to keep others from learning who was involved in the original break-in.
While thinking about life in the 1960s and 1970s this weekend, I began comparing the young people of today to the young people of yesteryear. Young people from both time frames are similar in some ways, including their impatience, but they are vastly different in other ways, including their belief in and support for our federal government. While young people of 40 and 50 years ago had a healthy disbelief for anything the government told them, the young people of today seem to blindly follow the federal government, especially this President.
I have to wonder how the young people of yesterday, as well as the reporters in their age group, would have reacted to a President who clearly avoided calling violence on our consulate the result of terrorism, although intelligence before the attack pointed to a growing terrorist threat, and intelligence immediately after the attack indicated that a terrorist group had carried out a well-planned, coordinated assault.
Young people back then became very angry when their President and government clearly lied to them. Young people of today don't even seem to want to know the truth.
I wonder how those young people of yesterday would have reacted to an Administration that ignored pleas for additional security at the consulate or to an Administration that clearly dragged its feet in sending in military assistance to save American lives. I also wonder how those same young people would have reacted to a federal government whose policies have devastated so many of their peers economically, with only one out of two recent college graduates able to find a job in their field. Young people in the 1960s and 1970s would have been protesting in the streets if jobs weren't available to them. After their parents had sacrified life and limb so that their children would have a better life, those children, as well as their parents, would have demanded opportunities better than the previous generation of Americans. Today, being out of work and living with your parents is apparently the new normal in America.
For some reason, the young people of today just don't seem to care with the same fervor how easily our rights can all be taken away. They also don't even seem to believe that our federal government should be viewed with a cynicism. That's always been the American way -- to distrust government. This friction between citizens and government was ingrained in our fabric even before America was a country. We forged our own union because of an oppressive British government, and we have remained a country because our citizens have fought valiantly to preserve those rights and also to hold our government accountable to we the people.
Somewhere along the way, the healthy skepticism our young people have had for government has become an unhealthy allegiance. Sadly, if young people blindly follow government, our democratic form of government is at great risk for this and future generations of Americans.
I remember the images on my black and white television of those anti-war protests all over the U.S., with young people in the tens of thousands marching in various cities and occupying college administration buildings. Young people marched on the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago, protesting the Vietnam War and our federal government. They were met by police, who used mace indiscriminately on protestors and bystanders. The protestors chanted, "The Whole World's Watching," as television cameras captured images of the police fighting back the protestors.
The young people in those crowds were the offspring of those who experienced World War II, a generation that nearly saw its rights taken away by the Germans, Japanese and Italians. Many of those young people had parents who were killed or injured in World War II, and they also had many friends and family members who were either injured or killed in the Vietnam War. With the military draft still in force, these young people certainly had skin in the game, so to speak. They protested the Vietnam War with a passion, perhaps because at any time they could be forced by their government to fight in a war they didn't feel was necessary or just.
Although I was a little too young to participate in those protests, my father was seriously injured in World War II and had to live with pain every single day for the rest of his life. I knew a lot of young men from my hometown who never made it home from Vietnam. I learned from my father, who grew up in the Great Depression, that our rights were worth worth fighting for, even if it meant giving up your own life.
During this time period, young people, more than any other age group, questioned the decisions and motivations of our federal government, and rightly so. Young reporters Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward of the Washington Post were among those from this age group who doggedly asked tough questions and uncovered sources within the federal government in order to report the truth about the Watergate break-in and subsequent coverup. Their reporting, and the reporting of others, forced a President, Richard Nixon, to resign, not because of the original burgulary of political offices at the Watergate Hotel, but because he was deeply involved in the coverup to keep others from learning who was involved in the original break-in.
While thinking about life in the 1960s and 1970s this weekend, I began comparing the young people of today to the young people of yesteryear. Young people from both time frames are similar in some ways, including their impatience, but they are vastly different in other ways, including their belief in and support for our federal government. While young people of 40 and 50 years ago had a healthy disbelief for anything the government told them, the young people of today seem to blindly follow the federal government, especially this President.
I have to wonder how the young people of yesterday, as well as the reporters in their age group, would have reacted to a President who clearly avoided calling violence on our consulate the result of terrorism, although intelligence before the attack pointed to a growing terrorist threat, and intelligence immediately after the attack indicated that a terrorist group had carried out a well-planned, coordinated assault.
Young people back then became very angry when their President and government clearly lied to them. Young people of today don't even seem to want to know the truth.
I wonder how those young people of yesterday would have reacted to an Administration that ignored pleas for additional security at the consulate or to an Administration that clearly dragged its feet in sending in military assistance to save American lives. I also wonder how those same young people would have reacted to a federal government whose policies have devastated so many of their peers economically, with only one out of two recent college graduates able to find a job in their field. Young people in the 1960s and 1970s would have been protesting in the streets if jobs weren't available to them. After their parents had sacrified life and limb so that their children would have a better life, those children, as well as their parents, would have demanded opportunities better than the previous generation of Americans. Today, being out of work and living with your parents is apparently the new normal in America.
For some reason, the young people of today just don't seem to care with the same fervor how easily our rights can all be taken away. They also don't even seem to believe that our federal government should be viewed with a cynicism. That's always been the American way -- to distrust government. This friction between citizens and government was ingrained in our fabric even before America was a country. We forged our own union because of an oppressive British government, and we have remained a country because our citizens have fought valiantly to preserve those rights and also to hold our government accountable to we the people.
Somewhere along the way, the healthy skepticism our young people have had for government has become an unhealthy allegiance. Sadly, if young people blindly follow government, our democratic form of government is at great risk for this and future generations of Americans.
Friday, November 9, 2012
The Voice of Reason: The End of Freedom of Speech, Press in America?
While pondering yesterday evening how America could possibly elect a President with such a horrific record to a second term in office, I began thinking about how much the country I love so much has changed in just the last four years.
I thought back to the venom directed to actress Stacy Dash from the left when she announced she was supporting Mitt Romney, the lack of media coverage and the Administration's response to the killing of four Americans in Benghazi, the dearth of coverage about the horrible suffering in New York and New Jersey following Hurricane Sandy, the lack of context and depth in the media's coverage of economic issues facing this country, and the hate-filled responses I received on Facebook when I attempted to point out facts about the major issues facing our country.
It suddenly dawned on me. Our First Amendment Freedoms of Speech and the Press, outlined in the Bill of Rights, are slowly being eroded through attempted censorship from within our own citizenry and by a media censoring its own news to avoid appearing to be negative towards their President. Let me explain further.
When the violence in the Middle East erupted on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, the Obama Administration pointed to a YouTube video as the cause, calling it "despicable" and communicating that America had nothing to do with this slanderous video. The President even spoke before the U.N., essentially apologizing for and attacking this anti-Muslim video. A few weeks later, the person who made this video was jailed by the government on a probation violation charge. A clear message was sent in words and actions by the Obama Administration: No one can speak out against Muslims in America.
As this story began to unfold, Fox News was excluded from an intelligence briefing on Benghazi. The one news organization that has had the courage to probe deeper into what happened and why it happened was excluded from this briefing. (This is something that would wouldn't have even occurred in the Nixon White House.) Again, a clear message was delivered by the Obama Administration: Speak out against the government, and we will retaliate by limiting your access to news.
When Dash announced she was supporting Romney, you would have thought she had sexually abused a child. Twitter was filled with hate-filled Tweets from the left, including threats. Once more, a clear message was delivered by the left: How dare anyone in Hollywood speak out against our President.
The same type of hate-filled messaging was delivered to black conservatives who had the courage to vocalize and publicize their convictions. The same people who rightly rallied around those courageous enough to speak up for civil rights in the 60s were suddenly trying their best to keep other blacks from speaking up for their conservative views in the 2010s.
Even on Facebook, I and others were practically accosted for writing posts and posting links to articles that were less-than-flattering of the Adminstration's response to Benghazi, the facts about our economic recovery and FEMA's response to Hurricane Sandy. One poster wrote sarcastically about how apparently I and others thought the President was a "Muslim bastard," while another defended the Administration's response to Hurricane Sandy when I compared the response to Katrina. Although I didn't mention the President even once in my post about the response to Sandy, the person responded that I was just trying to make the President look bad. Interestingly, those in New York and New Jersey themselves are comparing the slow response to Hurricane Sandy to the response after Katrina. Another liberal friend on Facebook claimed that racism was the reason why people weren't supporting President Obama.
Another Facebook friend posted a picture on Election Day indicating that she "Voted for Democrats." This was the same Facebook friend who derided me in an e mail a couple of months ago for "liking" something on Facebook that she felt didn't represent the fair and reasonable person she had always found me to be. And yet, she was proud that she only voted for those who are members of one political party, not the candidate or the issues? If this isn't hypocracy at its worst, I don't know what is.
In the 1960s, it became politically correct to fight against the government. Today, it has become politically correct to attack anyone who says anything against the government.
The reason why I and others wrote posts on Facebook or posted links was to inform Americans about issues that were not being covered by the national news media fairly and thoroughly. With 23 million Americans struggling to find work, 40-some months of 8%+ unemployment and an economy that has clearly not recovered, one would think that coverage of the economy would have dominated every evening newscast in the months leading up to the election. In the past, the news media would dive deeper into these issues, helping to put them into context for the average American. Instead, as I pointed out in an earlier blog, the mainstream evening news most often focused on anti-Republican issues, while investing precious minutes of a newscast on such important topics such as Rosie O'Donnell taking an aspiran that saved her life or the death of Phyllis Diller -- instead of probing more deeply into our nation's economic or debt woes.
Has the media coverage been biased? A study from the Pew Research Center discovered that 19% of the coverage of President Obama was positive, while 30% was negative. In comparison, only 15% of the coverage of Romney was positive, while 38% was negative.
Interestingly, though, up until before the President's abysmal performance in the first debate in early October, just one month before the election, news media coverage of the President was twice as positive as it was towards Romney. Prior to that debate, 22% of the coverage of the President was positive, compared to just 11% for Romney. This means that for months on end, when the vast majority of voters were making decisions about whom they would vote for, the coverage was twice as positive for the President as it was for the challenger, even though millions were out of work, millions more were forced into poverty and in some months more Americans went on disability than actually found a job.
http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2012/11/02/study-romney-obama-both-get-negative-coverage
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/study-msnbc-had-more-negative-coverage-of-romney-than-fox-had-toward-obama/
Until the news media begin covering this President, the two major parties and the issues facing Americans thoroughly and equitably, Republicans will not have any chance at retaking the White House. Until fairness returns to journalism, Americans will only be given the news the media want us to learn.
Until fairness returns, it will be up to bloggers like myself, and Americans like you, to hold this Administration accountable and to let other Americans learn the truth about what is truly going on in our country. Twitter, Facebook and our blogs will become the source of news for Americans who want to learn all the news that's fit to print, to borrow from the slogan of the New York Times that clearly no longer applies to that newpaper or to the majority of media outlets in America.
Sadly, no one else is going to do it but us. We must fight just as valiantly and tirelessly as those who fought for civil rights in the 1960s. This time, though, we'll be fighting for the soul and the future of the America we love so dearly.
I thought back to the venom directed to actress Stacy Dash from the left when she announced she was supporting Mitt Romney, the lack of media coverage and the Administration's response to the killing of four Americans in Benghazi, the dearth of coverage about the horrible suffering in New York and New Jersey following Hurricane Sandy, the lack of context and depth in the media's coverage of economic issues facing this country, and the hate-filled responses I received on Facebook when I attempted to point out facts about the major issues facing our country.
It suddenly dawned on me. Our First Amendment Freedoms of Speech and the Press, outlined in the Bill of Rights, are slowly being eroded through attempted censorship from within our own citizenry and by a media censoring its own news to avoid appearing to be negative towards their President. Let me explain further.
When the violence in the Middle East erupted on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, the Obama Administration pointed to a YouTube video as the cause, calling it "despicable" and communicating that America had nothing to do with this slanderous video. The President even spoke before the U.N., essentially apologizing for and attacking this anti-Muslim video. A few weeks later, the person who made this video was jailed by the government on a probation violation charge. A clear message was sent in words and actions by the Obama Administration: No one can speak out against Muslims in America.
As this story began to unfold, Fox News was excluded from an intelligence briefing on Benghazi. The one news organization that has had the courage to probe deeper into what happened and why it happened was excluded from this briefing. (This is something that would wouldn't have even occurred in the Nixon White House.) Again, a clear message was delivered by the Obama Administration: Speak out against the government, and we will retaliate by limiting your access to news.
When Dash announced she was supporting Romney, you would have thought she had sexually abused a child. Twitter was filled with hate-filled Tweets from the left, including threats. Once more, a clear message was delivered by the left: How dare anyone in Hollywood speak out against our President.
The same type of hate-filled messaging was delivered to black conservatives who had the courage to vocalize and publicize their convictions. The same people who rightly rallied around those courageous enough to speak up for civil rights in the 60s were suddenly trying their best to keep other blacks from speaking up for their conservative views in the 2010s.
Even on Facebook, I and others were practically accosted for writing posts and posting links to articles that were less-than-flattering of the Adminstration's response to Benghazi, the facts about our economic recovery and FEMA's response to Hurricane Sandy. One poster wrote sarcastically about how apparently I and others thought the President was a "Muslim bastard," while another defended the Administration's response to Hurricane Sandy when I compared the response to Katrina. Although I didn't mention the President even once in my post about the response to Sandy, the person responded that I was just trying to make the President look bad. Interestingly, those in New York and New Jersey themselves are comparing the slow response to Hurricane Sandy to the response after Katrina. Another liberal friend on Facebook claimed that racism was the reason why people weren't supporting President Obama.
Another Facebook friend posted a picture on Election Day indicating that she "Voted for Democrats." This was the same Facebook friend who derided me in an e mail a couple of months ago for "liking" something on Facebook that she felt didn't represent the fair and reasonable person she had always found me to be. And yet, she was proud that she only voted for those who are members of one political party, not the candidate or the issues? If this isn't hypocracy at its worst, I don't know what is.
In the 1960s, it became politically correct to fight against the government. Today, it has become politically correct to attack anyone who says anything against the government.
The reason why I and others wrote posts on Facebook or posted links was to inform Americans about issues that were not being covered by the national news media fairly and thoroughly. With 23 million Americans struggling to find work, 40-some months of 8%+ unemployment and an economy that has clearly not recovered, one would think that coverage of the economy would have dominated every evening newscast in the months leading up to the election. In the past, the news media would dive deeper into these issues, helping to put them into context for the average American. Instead, as I pointed out in an earlier blog, the mainstream evening news most often focused on anti-Republican issues, while investing precious minutes of a newscast on such important topics such as Rosie O'Donnell taking an aspiran that saved her life or the death of Phyllis Diller -- instead of probing more deeply into our nation's economic or debt woes.
Has the media coverage been biased? A study from the Pew Research Center discovered that 19% of the coverage of President Obama was positive, while 30% was negative. In comparison, only 15% of the coverage of Romney was positive, while 38% was negative.
Interestingly, though, up until before the President's abysmal performance in the first debate in early October, just one month before the election, news media coverage of the President was twice as positive as it was towards Romney. Prior to that debate, 22% of the coverage of the President was positive, compared to just 11% for Romney. This means that for months on end, when the vast majority of voters were making decisions about whom they would vote for, the coverage was twice as positive for the President as it was for the challenger, even though millions were out of work, millions more were forced into poverty and in some months more Americans went on disability than actually found a job.
http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2012/11/02/study-romney-obama-both-get-negative-coverage
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/study-msnbc-had-more-negative-coverage-of-romney-than-fox-had-toward-obama/
Until the news media begin covering this President, the two major parties and the issues facing Americans thoroughly and equitably, Republicans will not have any chance at retaking the White House. Until fairness returns to journalism, Americans will only be given the news the media want us to learn.
Until fairness returns, it will be up to bloggers like myself, and Americans like you, to hold this Administration accountable and to let other Americans learn the truth about what is truly going on in our country. Twitter, Facebook and our blogs will become the source of news for Americans who want to learn all the news that's fit to print, to borrow from the slogan of the New York Times that clearly no longer applies to that newpaper or to the majority of media outlets in America.
Sadly, no one else is going to do it but us. We must fight just as valiantly and tirelessly as those who fought for civil rights in the 1960s. This time, though, we'll be fighting for the soul and the future of the America we love so dearly.
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
The Voice of Reason: Uninformed Liberals and Lamestream News Media Tilted Election
I started writing this blog with the idea that I would help to educate America, one uninformed liberal at a time. I, and other conservatives, made some progress this election, but we clearly didn't make enough progress.
I would like to share a couple of anecdotes that may help to explain why Barack Obama was elected to a second term.
Several weeks ago I wrote a post on Facebook, to which one of my liberal friends responded. This 20-something replied that the economy had turned around significantly and that America had created 4.5 million new jobs under this President. Clearly, my friend had listened to the talking points from the Democratic National Convention and believed they were 100% true.
Instead of arguing with him, I posted a link to a fact check article, one which explained that the Administration had created 4.5 million jobs, but only if one looked at the statistics from a timeline most advantageous to the Administration. If you looked at the total number of jobs in America when Obama took office and compared it to the number of jobs at the time my Facebook post was published, America actually had fewer jobs.
My friend thanked me for pointing him to the facts. He realized that he had succumbed to the political spin often found in Presidential campaigns. He was amazed that America had fewer jobs than when the President took office, after hearing so many times that 4.5 million jobs had been created. That mantra was probably repeated 100 times at the Convention.
Earlier this week, I had a Facebook exchange with this same friend. He pointed out how the President had saved the U.S. car industry by keeping GM from bankruptcy. This friend insinuated that Mitt Romney and I wanted GM to fail.
I took the time to explain that GM actually went through a bankruptcy, but that this was controlled and decided by the federal government, not an impartial bankruptcy judge. I also pointed out that the union was essentially made whole during this structured bankruptcy, while investors received pennies on the dollar. I also shared with him that thousands of employees at Delphi, a non-union parts company owned by GM, received little or nothing, unlike their union brethren. I also communicated that according to many experts, GM may be racing toward another bankruptcy because it didn't rid itself of unprofitable assets and outrageous union contracts as would have been done in a typical bankruptcy. Lastly, I pointed out that the two most "American" cars today are the Honda Accord and Toyota Camry, based on where they are assembled and the percentage of parts that are made in America. As a result, the American car industry saved by the President is so much more than just GM and Chrysler.
Once again, this friend was astounded to discover the truth. He couldn't believe that he did not know all of the facts and thanked me for taking the time to explain them to him. I'm certain that he voted for Obama yesterday, but I'm also sure that he began to have some second thoughts about his choice and the truthfulness of what he's been spoonfed by the Democratic Party.
The problem isn't that my friend is stupid or that he doesn't want to learn the truth. The problem is that my friend hasn't been provided with the facts by a mainstream news media that have spent all of their time publicizing President Obama instead of reporting on him. To sway this one voter, I would have had to spend hundreds of hours reprogramming him from the thousands of hours of biased media coverage.
Our news media have done a horrendous job. The economy was reported on at a very high level, without the context that makes data meaningful. For example, a jobs report showing 90,000 new jobs in one month sounds as though we're making real progress, until one learns that America needs to create between 125,000 and 200,000 new jobs each month just to keep pace with population growth. I watched newscast after newscast essentially ignore the economy, or spin the data in a way that was most advantageous to the President.
Even such issues as the growth in our Gross Domestic Product (GDP) was spun much differently when reported by the news media the past couple of years, compared to how it was reported during previous administrations. Three percent growth under Bush was often reported as "disappointing." Under Obama, growth half that amount was reported as "slow and steady" by the news media, trying their best to put a positive spin on the slowest economic recovery in history.
Benghazi should have been the topic that dominated news coverage the past two months, but other than Fox News, you really haven't heard much about it. The American people were clearly lied to by this President and the Administration for at least two weeks following the deaths of four Americans. Serious mistakes in judgement and communications were made before, during and after the attacks and these mistakes should have been investigated and explained to the American peoople. More video of an interview President Obama did with "60 Minutes" was released quietly in the days before the election. This video showed that the President lied during his debate when he said that he had labeled the violence in Benghazi as a terrorist attack the day after the attack. One of Steve Croft's questions pointedly stated that the President had avoided calling the attack a terrorist attack, to which the President did not object. Where was this video when the issues of what the President said and what he believed were being discussed immediately after the debate when voters were most interested and still making their decisions about how to cast their votes? Clearly, a decision was made at the highest levels of major news organizations to not investigate this issue until after the election.
Frankly, I'm sickened by the results of the election, the number of uninformed Americans who voted for Obama and the bias of the news media. I thought I would set a trap for liberals. In a Facebook post earlier today, I wrote the following:
Congratulations to Barack Obama, who ran a very positive campaign, focusing on the issues of the time, not attempting to just tear down his opponent, but striving to delineate his detailed plan to put Americans back to work, to tackle the enormous debt our nation faces and to address the looming bankruptcy of Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare. I also commend the news media, which focused its attention on the economy, on asking hard-hitting questions that allowed Americans to discover the truth about Benghazi, and whose unbiased reporting gave Americans a clear view of this election.
The trap was set, and it didn't take long. My friend responded snarkily, indicating that my post showed a true lack of class.
I responded, of course, indicating that if my post weren't true and it were sarcastic, then Americans made a serious mistake in electing someone who hasn't laid out his plans for a better future, and that the news media was complicit in helping to mislead the American people into voting for this man. I also explained to him that his belief that my post was sarcastic actually proved my point.
(Believe it or not, this liberal actually wote in an e mail to me that he wished the President had spent more time explaining his plan for the future. If you don't know what someone is planning to do in the future, why in the world would you vote for that person?)
Once more, I educated America, one uninformed liberal at a time.
It's the only solace I have today as our country moves ever more closely to becoming a socialist nation of mediocrity.
I would like to share a couple of anecdotes that may help to explain why Barack Obama was elected to a second term.
Several weeks ago I wrote a post on Facebook, to which one of my liberal friends responded. This 20-something replied that the economy had turned around significantly and that America had created 4.5 million new jobs under this President. Clearly, my friend had listened to the talking points from the Democratic National Convention and believed they were 100% true.
Instead of arguing with him, I posted a link to a fact check article, one which explained that the Administration had created 4.5 million jobs, but only if one looked at the statistics from a timeline most advantageous to the Administration. If you looked at the total number of jobs in America when Obama took office and compared it to the number of jobs at the time my Facebook post was published, America actually had fewer jobs.
My friend thanked me for pointing him to the facts. He realized that he had succumbed to the political spin often found in Presidential campaigns. He was amazed that America had fewer jobs than when the President took office, after hearing so many times that 4.5 million jobs had been created. That mantra was probably repeated 100 times at the Convention.
Earlier this week, I had a Facebook exchange with this same friend. He pointed out how the President had saved the U.S. car industry by keeping GM from bankruptcy. This friend insinuated that Mitt Romney and I wanted GM to fail.
I took the time to explain that GM actually went through a bankruptcy, but that this was controlled and decided by the federal government, not an impartial bankruptcy judge. I also pointed out that the union was essentially made whole during this structured bankruptcy, while investors received pennies on the dollar. I also shared with him that thousands of employees at Delphi, a non-union parts company owned by GM, received little or nothing, unlike their union brethren. I also communicated that according to many experts, GM may be racing toward another bankruptcy because it didn't rid itself of unprofitable assets and outrageous union contracts as would have been done in a typical bankruptcy. Lastly, I pointed out that the two most "American" cars today are the Honda Accord and Toyota Camry, based on where they are assembled and the percentage of parts that are made in America. As a result, the American car industry saved by the President is so much more than just GM and Chrysler.
Once again, this friend was astounded to discover the truth. He couldn't believe that he did not know all of the facts and thanked me for taking the time to explain them to him. I'm certain that he voted for Obama yesterday, but I'm also sure that he began to have some second thoughts about his choice and the truthfulness of what he's been spoonfed by the Democratic Party.
The problem isn't that my friend is stupid or that he doesn't want to learn the truth. The problem is that my friend hasn't been provided with the facts by a mainstream news media that have spent all of their time publicizing President Obama instead of reporting on him. To sway this one voter, I would have had to spend hundreds of hours reprogramming him from the thousands of hours of biased media coverage.
Our news media have done a horrendous job. The economy was reported on at a very high level, without the context that makes data meaningful. For example, a jobs report showing 90,000 new jobs in one month sounds as though we're making real progress, until one learns that America needs to create between 125,000 and 200,000 new jobs each month just to keep pace with population growth. I watched newscast after newscast essentially ignore the economy, or spin the data in a way that was most advantageous to the President.
Even such issues as the growth in our Gross Domestic Product (GDP) was spun much differently when reported by the news media the past couple of years, compared to how it was reported during previous administrations. Three percent growth under Bush was often reported as "disappointing." Under Obama, growth half that amount was reported as "slow and steady" by the news media, trying their best to put a positive spin on the slowest economic recovery in history.
Benghazi should have been the topic that dominated news coverage the past two months, but other than Fox News, you really haven't heard much about it. The American people were clearly lied to by this President and the Administration for at least two weeks following the deaths of four Americans. Serious mistakes in judgement and communications were made before, during and after the attacks and these mistakes should have been investigated and explained to the American peoople. More video of an interview President Obama did with "60 Minutes" was released quietly in the days before the election. This video showed that the President lied during his debate when he said that he had labeled the violence in Benghazi as a terrorist attack the day after the attack. One of Steve Croft's questions pointedly stated that the President had avoided calling the attack a terrorist attack, to which the President did not object. Where was this video when the issues of what the President said and what he believed were being discussed immediately after the debate when voters were most interested and still making their decisions about how to cast their votes? Clearly, a decision was made at the highest levels of major news organizations to not investigate this issue until after the election.
Frankly, I'm sickened by the results of the election, the number of uninformed Americans who voted for Obama and the bias of the news media. I thought I would set a trap for liberals. In a Facebook post earlier today, I wrote the following:
Congratulations to Barack Obama, who ran a very positive campaign, focusing on the issues of the time, not attempting to just tear down his opponent, but striving to delineate his detailed plan to put Americans back to work, to tackle the enormous debt our nation faces and to address the looming bankruptcy of Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare. I also commend the news media, which focused its attention on the economy, on asking hard-hitting questions that allowed Americans to discover the truth about Benghazi, and whose unbiased reporting gave Americans a clear view of this election.
The trap was set, and it didn't take long. My friend responded snarkily, indicating that my post showed a true lack of class.
I responded, of course, indicating that if my post weren't true and it were sarcastic, then Americans made a serious mistake in electing someone who hasn't laid out his plans for a better future, and that the news media was complicit in helping to mislead the American people into voting for this man. I also explained to him that his belief that my post was sarcastic actually proved my point.
(Believe it or not, this liberal actually wote in an e mail to me that he wished the President had spent more time explaining his plan for the future. If you don't know what someone is planning to do in the future, why in the world would you vote for that person?)
Once more, I educated America, one uninformed liberal at a time.
It's the only solace I have today as our country moves ever more closely to becoming a socialist nation of mediocrity.
Saturday, November 3, 2012
The Voice of Reason: The Last Appeal to Undecided Voters
You're an undecided voter. You may lean slightly to the left or slightly to the right, but you're not sure whom you will vote for on Tuesday.
Perhaps you bought into Barack Obama's promise of Hope and Change in 2008, but are now disillusioned because you have seen many of your friends and family members lose their good-paying jobs in the last four years. Maybe you're even out of work yourself, and don't see things turning around quickly enough. There just aren't any good-paying jobs out there, and it worries you that your children and grandchildren will not have the opportunities you have. In fact, if things don't turn around quickly, you may not have the same opportunities your parents had. Maybe you're considering voting for Mitt Romney because of his experience but aren't sold on his positions on social issues, perhaps believing that he's a little too conservative. Maybe you lean to the right and don't think Romney is conservative enough.
No matter which way you're leaning, the fact is that your vote will decide this election and the future direction of this country -- not to put put any pressure on you.
As someone who is a registered Democrat who thinks more like a Republican but who votes for candidates of either party, I would like the opportunity to try to persuade you to vote for Mitt Romney.
If you're like me and millions of other Americans, you believe that the growing national debt and our stagnate economy are the two biggest issues facing our country over the next four years. You believe as I do that if we don't get our debt under control we will pass on a credit card bill to our children and grandchildren that they will never be able to pay. You also know as I do that this economy is dead in the water. There aren't thousands of new, good-paying jobs being created and millions of Americans are unemployed or underemployed.
I would urge you to forget about all of the other hot button issues, such as gay marriage or abortion or birth control. If we don't get our debt under control and our economy moving again, we may not have a country four years from now. The other issues will not matter if we don't quickly address the two most important issues facing our country.
In order to address these and other major issues, America will need a leader who is able to reach across party lines to get things done. In the past four years, President Obama has not been able to do this even once. He has devoted most of his time blaming his predecessor and the Republican Party for his inability to move legislation through Congress. But even members of his own party failed to give his proposed budgets even one vote the past two years, which should tell all of us how effectively he leads even his own party. President Obama rarely meets with the top four leaders of Congress and has never tried to develop a strong relationship with other key leaders of Congress, even among his own party. As a result, our President has been unable to accomplish anything of substance that has required bipartisan support. Our President has even admitted that he would rather spend more time with his family than "schmoozing" with Congress. I'm not sure if anyone has told him this, but a large part of the job as President is to spend that time developing relationships with members of the Legislative Branch of our government.
Republicans and Democrats have worked together before with great success, even when our country was greatly divided. President Reagan did it. President Clinton also did it. Each of these Presidents was a leader who realized that developing strong relationships with members of Congress was the key to getting anything done for the good of the country. President Obama hasn't done this at all and has spent little effort even trying to reach across party lines. As a result, our country is more divided than the day he took office and neither party is able to pass much-needed legislation.
In contrast, as Governor of Massachusetts, Romney worked collaboratively with his legislature, who overwhelmingly were Democrats, to pass major legislation. He has proven that he is able to reach across party lines. He's done it. If you watched the debates as I did, you didn't hear President Obama mention even once that he had worked with Republicans to pass legislation, while Romney talked about this experience on numerous occasions. Romney used this same talent as a collaborative leader to help companies prosper and to add thousands of jobs while at Bain Capital, and also as head of the Olympics.
If our country is able to move forward and address the major issues of our growing national debt and a stagnate economy, as well as other issues, we will need a strong leader who understands how to work with members of the other party for the good of the country. Mitt Romney has proven that he can do this; President Obama has failed miserably at this.
If for no other reason than this one, undecided voter, Mitt Romney deserves your vote and President Obama does not. It's really that simple.
Thursday, November 1, 2012
The Voice of Reason: Why Most Polls Are Wrong
I'm one of those rare people who actually reads the small print at the end of advertisements. By examining the print most people can't even see, I can tell the difference between how the deal is being framed by the advertiser and the reality of the deal.
I take this same care with polls and while doing my research. Earlier this week, I happened to see a headline on the gallup.com website that captured my attention: "2012 Electorate Looks Like 2008." I clicked on the link and read the article as well as the data behind the article. http://www.gallup.com/poll/158399/2012-electorate-looks-like-2008.aspx
As I read the article, I noticed that the demographics of likely voters in the 2012 election are expected to be pretty much the same as they were in 2008. The proportion of men to women, ethnicity and age are expected to be very close to what they were in 2008, according to Gallup's polls. The proportion of voters in different areas of the country, as well as the voters' educational levels are also expected to be very close to 2008.
But then I noticed some data almost buried at the bottom of the page that showed a significant shift in likely voters. Unless you took the time to read the entire article, you wouldn't have even noticed it. The headline didn't even hint at this shift. The fact is that the percentage of "likely voters" in 2012 has shifted significantly to the Republican side, when compared to 2008 voters.
In 2008, voters identified as being Democrats were 39% of the electorate, with independents making up 31% and Republicans coming in at 29%. In 2012, the numbers of likely voters have shifted to 35% Democrat, 29% independent and 36% Republican. In other words, based on Gallup's polling Democrats are expected to vote at a rate four percentage points lower than in 2008, but Republicans are expected to vote at a rate seven percentage points higher than in 2008. Interesting. That's an 11-point swing.
If you look at the projected likely voters in terms of those who are leaning Democrat compared to those leaning Republicans, Republicans are expected to vote in higher nunbers than Democrats, 49% to 46%. In 2008, the electorate was 54% Democrat or leaning Democrat, vs. 42% Republican or leaning Republican. That's a 15-point swing to the Republican side.
What does all of this mean?
According to Gallup's numbers, all of the polls that are oversampling Democrats by 5% or even more are dead wrong. In a poll showing President Obama winning by 5% with 5% oversampling of Democrats, Mitt Romney should win by 3%. In polls with 5% oversampling of Democrats that show the President winning by 3%, Romney should win by 5%. To put this simply, a few of those states that are leaning Obama may actually turn out to Romney wins, and those states that show a dead heat may actually turn out to be Romney wins of 8%. This election could turn out to be a rout in Romney's favor.
Polls of early voting by the same Gallup group seem to reinforce the notion that Republicans are going to out vote Democrats in 2012. Through Sunday, 15% of those surveyed said that they had already cast a ballot in person or via absenstee ballot. Of those surveyed who had already voted, 52% of those polled said that they had voted for Romney, while 46% said that they had voted for President Obama. Of the 63% surveyed who plan to vote on Election Day similarly plan to support Romney by a 51% to 45% margin.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204846304578090820229096046.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
I'm glad I actually take the time to read the fine print. That's the only way I would know that the vast majority of polls are so biased in favor of President Obama that they are bordering on the ridiculous.
I take this same care with polls and while doing my research. Earlier this week, I happened to see a headline on the gallup.com website that captured my attention: "2012 Electorate Looks Like 2008." I clicked on the link and read the article as well as the data behind the article. http://www.gallup.com/poll/158399/2012-electorate-looks-like-2008.aspx
As I read the article, I noticed that the demographics of likely voters in the 2012 election are expected to be pretty much the same as they were in 2008. The proportion of men to women, ethnicity and age are expected to be very close to what they were in 2008, according to Gallup's polls. The proportion of voters in different areas of the country, as well as the voters' educational levels are also expected to be very close to 2008.
But then I noticed some data almost buried at the bottom of the page that showed a significant shift in likely voters. Unless you took the time to read the entire article, you wouldn't have even noticed it. The headline didn't even hint at this shift. The fact is that the percentage of "likely voters" in 2012 has shifted significantly to the Republican side, when compared to 2008 voters.
In 2008, voters identified as being Democrats were 39% of the electorate, with independents making up 31% and Republicans coming in at 29%. In 2012, the numbers of likely voters have shifted to 35% Democrat, 29% independent and 36% Republican. In other words, based on Gallup's polling Democrats are expected to vote at a rate four percentage points lower than in 2008, but Republicans are expected to vote at a rate seven percentage points higher than in 2008. Interesting. That's an 11-point swing.
If you look at the projected likely voters in terms of those who are leaning Democrat compared to those leaning Republicans, Republicans are expected to vote in higher nunbers than Democrats, 49% to 46%. In 2008, the electorate was 54% Democrat or leaning Democrat, vs. 42% Republican or leaning Republican. That's a 15-point swing to the Republican side.
What does all of this mean?
According to Gallup's numbers, all of the polls that are oversampling Democrats by 5% or even more are dead wrong. In a poll showing President Obama winning by 5% with 5% oversampling of Democrats, Mitt Romney should win by 3%. In polls with 5% oversampling of Democrats that show the President winning by 3%, Romney should win by 5%. To put this simply, a few of those states that are leaning Obama may actually turn out to Romney wins, and those states that show a dead heat may actually turn out to be Romney wins of 8%. This election could turn out to be a rout in Romney's favor.
Polls of early voting by the same Gallup group seem to reinforce the notion that Republicans are going to out vote Democrats in 2012. Through Sunday, 15% of those surveyed said that they had already cast a ballot in person or via absenstee ballot. Of those surveyed who had already voted, 52% of those polled said that they had voted for Romney, while 46% said that they had voted for President Obama. Of the 63% surveyed who plan to vote on Election Day similarly plan to support Romney by a 51% to 45% margin.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204846304578090820229096046.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
I'm glad I actually take the time to read the fine print. That's the only way I would know that the vast majority of polls are so biased in favor of President Obama that they are bordering on the ridiculous.
Saturday, October 27, 2012
The Voice of Reason: Benghazi Debacle Should Be Investigated
I first became interested in journalism after watching the movie, "All the President's Men." This 1976 movie chronicled the investigative journalism of Washington Post reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, whose series of articles brought down the presidency of Richard M. Nixon.
To me, these journalists were American heroes. They had the courage to ask the tough questions, to investigate beyond the quotes and sound bites provided by the Nixon Administration to report that a coverup of a third rate burgularly at the Watergate Hotel went all the way up to the President of the United States. President Nixon wasn't involved in the original crime, but he was deeply involved in the attempt to hide the administration's involvement in the burgulary.
In the past month and a half, I couldn't help to think back to those golden days when journalists believed their jobs were to act as the Fourth Estate in American politics, to keep our government honest and to take everything government officials said with great sketicism. There was a healthy distance between journalists and government officials, with neither side truly trusting the other. Where are those journalists today when it's clear that officials in the Obama Administration are lying about what they knew about the attack on our embassy in Benghazi, Libya, and when they knew it?
Just as the original burgulary did not involve President Nixon, the failure to ensure proper security at the Benghazi embassy in all likelihood never made its way to President Obama. But just like Watergate, the attempt to make the attack appear to be anything but a well-planned attack by terrorists in all likelihood did involve President Obama and his closest staff.
Facing a close election, the last thing this President and his administration wanted to see reported on the televisions of American voters was a terrorist attack killing four of our own, including an ambassador, on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. For this reason, the Obama Administration labeled the violence as a spontaneous attack by demonstrators angered by a YouTube video. Obama Administration officials, including the President himself, Press Secretary Jay Carney and our Ambassador to the U.N., Susan Rice, continued to perpetuate this lie for at least two weeks following the attacks.
But then more information began to emerge from the shadows.
E mails showed that the White House was told in the hours after the attack that it wasn't a spontaneous demonstration, including that a terrorist group had claimed reponsibility for the attacks. More details revealed that real-time video was being watched at the White House and the State Department, showing as events unfolded that this was a well-planned attack and not the result of a spontaneous demonstration. In the past few days, even more information has come to light, including that the Navy Seals working for the CIA who responded to the attack at our embassy asked for military support, but that this assistance was denied. Yesterday, the CIA released a statement saying that no one at the CIA had denied any request for assistance from those Seals, which in all likelihood means that someone at the Department of Defense vetoed the request. When the Department of Defense denies a request for military assistance at a U.S. embassy under attack, this decision would most likely would have involved the President of the United States. Military experts have reported this weekend that the President would clearly have approved or denied any decision to send in military assistance.
Think about this logically. If a U.S. embassy is under attack, if military assistance is requested and if live video is available to see what is happening on the ground, do you not think the President himself would be aware of what is happening and involved in the decision-making? Absolutely.
Sadly, the mainstream news media, other than Fox News, has turned a blind eye to what is clearly an attempt to deceive the American people. Brian Williams of NBC News, one of the few journalists who have been given any access at all to the President in recent weeks, lobbed one "softball" question about Benghazi to the President during an interview this week. The President deflected the question and Williams moved on to other topics.
In an interview on Fox News this weekend, Bob Woodward (yes, the same Bob Woodward who broke the Watergate story in the 1970s) said that the way the President has answered questions should have raised red flags for any credible reporter. Essentially, the President has said that voters really don't want to hear about Benghazi during this election, which, according to Woodward, means that the President really doesn't want to talk about this issue and may have something to hide.
This is exactly why credible journalists should be asking these questions of the President and key members of his staff.
From all indications, our President had a bad case of electile dysfunction -- afraid to call the violence a "terrorist attack" and afraid to send in military support to raise the profile of a tense situation so close to the election. As a result, four Americans are dead and the American people have been deceived by this President for weeks.
Just as Watergate brought down a President four decades ago, Benghazi could and should end this President's reign.
To me, these journalists were American heroes. They had the courage to ask the tough questions, to investigate beyond the quotes and sound bites provided by the Nixon Administration to report that a coverup of a third rate burgularly at the Watergate Hotel went all the way up to the President of the United States. President Nixon wasn't involved in the original crime, but he was deeply involved in the attempt to hide the administration's involvement in the burgulary.
In the past month and a half, I couldn't help to think back to those golden days when journalists believed their jobs were to act as the Fourth Estate in American politics, to keep our government honest and to take everything government officials said with great sketicism. There was a healthy distance between journalists and government officials, with neither side truly trusting the other. Where are those journalists today when it's clear that officials in the Obama Administration are lying about what they knew about the attack on our embassy in Benghazi, Libya, and when they knew it?
Just as the original burgulary did not involve President Nixon, the failure to ensure proper security at the Benghazi embassy in all likelihood never made its way to President Obama. But just like Watergate, the attempt to make the attack appear to be anything but a well-planned attack by terrorists in all likelihood did involve President Obama and his closest staff.
Facing a close election, the last thing this President and his administration wanted to see reported on the televisions of American voters was a terrorist attack killing four of our own, including an ambassador, on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. For this reason, the Obama Administration labeled the violence as a spontaneous attack by demonstrators angered by a YouTube video. Obama Administration officials, including the President himself, Press Secretary Jay Carney and our Ambassador to the U.N., Susan Rice, continued to perpetuate this lie for at least two weeks following the attacks.
But then more information began to emerge from the shadows.
E mails showed that the White House was told in the hours after the attack that it wasn't a spontaneous demonstration, including that a terrorist group had claimed reponsibility for the attacks. More details revealed that real-time video was being watched at the White House and the State Department, showing as events unfolded that this was a well-planned attack and not the result of a spontaneous demonstration. In the past few days, even more information has come to light, including that the Navy Seals working for the CIA who responded to the attack at our embassy asked for military support, but that this assistance was denied. Yesterday, the CIA released a statement saying that no one at the CIA had denied any request for assistance from those Seals, which in all likelihood means that someone at the Department of Defense vetoed the request. When the Department of Defense denies a request for military assistance at a U.S. embassy under attack, this decision would most likely would have involved the President of the United States. Military experts have reported this weekend that the President would clearly have approved or denied any decision to send in military assistance.
Think about this logically. If a U.S. embassy is under attack, if military assistance is requested and if live video is available to see what is happening on the ground, do you not think the President himself would be aware of what is happening and involved in the decision-making? Absolutely.
Sadly, the mainstream news media, other than Fox News, has turned a blind eye to what is clearly an attempt to deceive the American people. Brian Williams of NBC News, one of the few journalists who have been given any access at all to the President in recent weeks, lobbed one "softball" question about Benghazi to the President during an interview this week. The President deflected the question and Williams moved on to other topics.
In an interview on Fox News this weekend, Bob Woodward (yes, the same Bob Woodward who broke the Watergate story in the 1970s) said that the way the President has answered questions should have raised red flags for any credible reporter. Essentially, the President has said that voters really don't want to hear about Benghazi during this election, which, according to Woodward, means that the President really doesn't want to talk about this issue and may have something to hide.
This is exactly why credible journalists should be asking these questions of the President and key members of his staff.
From all indications, our President had a bad case of electile dysfunction -- afraid to call the violence a "terrorist attack" and afraid to send in military support to raise the profile of a tense situation so close to the election. As a result, four Americans are dead and the American people have been deceived by this President for weeks.
Just as Watergate brought down a President four decades ago, Benghazi could and should end this President's reign.
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
The Voice of Reason: Romney Will Win Election
Two weeks until the November 6 election, the numbers are starting to turn markedly in the direction of Republican candidate Mitt Romney.
The latest polls show Romney up 50-46% in the Rasmussen Reports poll, up up 49-48% in the ABC News/Washington Post poll and up 51-46% in the Gallup poll. Of the latest polls including data through October 22, only the IBD/TIPP poll shows President Obama up two points, 47-45%.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html
Averaging the two most respected polls, Rasmussen Reports and Gallup, Romney leads with 50.5% to 46% for President Obama. With most polls showing a third party candidate receiving only 1% of the vote, this means that only 2.5% of voters are truly "undecided" in these two polls.
If four years of on-the-job training haven't convinced voters to cast their ballot for President Obama, chances are that two more weeks of campaigning won't either. Historically, two-thirds or more of undecided voters vote against the incumbent when a competent challenger is on the ballot, which means that in all likelihood Romney will pick up around another 1.5% of votes, giving him about 52% to about 47% for the President and 1% for a third party candidate. A 5% percent spread will result in an easy Electoral College victory for the Republican candidate.
Prior to the first debate, the President was clearly in the lead, although he was barely able to reach the 50% point in the polls, which demonstrated voters' dissatisfaction with him and his record. In early September, the President was up by 7% in the Gallop poll and 5% in the Rasmussen Reports poll. This lead came after spending $150 million in negative advertising against Romney by the Obama Campaign and its super PACs.
At the first debate, however, voters who were leaning for President Obama were able to see Romney as someone who clearly is a competent candidate. Viewing Romney through the unfiltered lens on the televisions in their living rooms, voters saw the Republican candidate as someone who was clearly able to stand toe-to-toe with the President and actually beat him soundly at explaining how he would revive the economy, the most important issue of this campaign. More importantly, they saw Romney not as the uncaring person painted by $150 million worth of Obama Campaign advertising, but as a caring human being who is a faithful husband, a strong father and a leading member of his church. Those leaning voters started moving to Romney and the polls began to reflect this change. Voters were able to compare a candidate with an economic plan against a President with a horrific economic record and who also has not explained what he would do differently in a second term.
With each subsequent debate, Romney solidified himself as a competent, caring candidate, equal to or better than the President we currently have. During last night's debate on foreign policy, Romney was actually able to appear more Presidential than President Obama, describing a high-level vision for American foreign policy instead of the snarky and condescending comments made by the President. While most believe President Obama won this debate because of his aggressiveness, Romney achieved what he wanted to achieve -- to present himself to the American people as a competent leader on foreign policy and not the warmonger as he's been portrayed by the Obama Campaign. In comparison, the President did not achieve what he need to achieve -- an overwhelming victory to change the direction of the polls.
The fat lady may not be singing yet, but unless something changes dramatically in the next two weeks, she clearly is warming up her vocal cords.
The latest polls show Romney up 50-46% in the Rasmussen Reports poll, up up 49-48% in the ABC News/Washington Post poll and up 51-46% in the Gallup poll. Of the latest polls including data through October 22, only the IBD/TIPP poll shows President Obama up two points, 47-45%.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html
Averaging the two most respected polls, Rasmussen Reports and Gallup, Romney leads with 50.5% to 46% for President Obama. With most polls showing a third party candidate receiving only 1% of the vote, this means that only 2.5% of voters are truly "undecided" in these two polls.
If four years of on-the-job training haven't convinced voters to cast their ballot for President Obama, chances are that two more weeks of campaigning won't either. Historically, two-thirds or more of undecided voters vote against the incumbent when a competent challenger is on the ballot, which means that in all likelihood Romney will pick up around another 1.5% of votes, giving him about 52% to about 47% for the President and 1% for a third party candidate. A 5% percent spread will result in an easy Electoral College victory for the Republican candidate.
Prior to the first debate, the President was clearly in the lead, although he was barely able to reach the 50% point in the polls, which demonstrated voters' dissatisfaction with him and his record. In early September, the President was up by 7% in the Gallop poll and 5% in the Rasmussen Reports poll. This lead came after spending $150 million in negative advertising against Romney by the Obama Campaign and its super PACs.
At the first debate, however, voters who were leaning for President Obama were able to see Romney as someone who clearly is a competent candidate. Viewing Romney through the unfiltered lens on the televisions in their living rooms, voters saw the Republican candidate as someone who was clearly able to stand toe-to-toe with the President and actually beat him soundly at explaining how he would revive the economy, the most important issue of this campaign. More importantly, they saw Romney not as the uncaring person painted by $150 million worth of Obama Campaign advertising, but as a caring human being who is a faithful husband, a strong father and a leading member of his church. Those leaning voters started moving to Romney and the polls began to reflect this change. Voters were able to compare a candidate with an economic plan against a President with a horrific economic record and who also has not explained what he would do differently in a second term.
With each subsequent debate, Romney solidified himself as a competent, caring candidate, equal to or better than the President we currently have. During last night's debate on foreign policy, Romney was actually able to appear more Presidential than President Obama, describing a high-level vision for American foreign policy instead of the snarky and condescending comments made by the President. While most believe President Obama won this debate because of his aggressiveness, Romney achieved what he wanted to achieve -- to present himself to the American people as a competent leader on foreign policy and not the warmonger as he's been portrayed by the Obama Campaign. In comparison, the President did not achieve what he need to achieve -- an overwhelming victory to change the direction of the polls.
The fat lady may not be singing yet, but unless something changes dramatically in the next two weeks, she clearly is warming up her vocal cords.
Saturday, October 20, 2012
The Voice of Reason: The President Continues to Be Empty Suit of Broken Promises and Pathetic Record
After returning home this weekend after a week on the road, I've had a little time to re-watch the latest the Presidential Debate that was held on Tuesday, October 16.
What amazed me while watching this debate the second time around was how little the President had to say in terms of his plans for a second term. Apparently he has no plans, except to enact more of the same failed policies that have devasted this country, especially the middle class, during the past four years.
In short, this President continues to be an empty suit of broken promises, a pathetic economic record and no articulated plans for the future. His only campaign strategy appears to be smearing Republican candidate Mitt Romney, a man with a proven record as a job creator and leader of government.
While Romney talked about how he worked collaboratively with Democrats to pass legislation while Governor of Massachusetts, the President blamed the Republicans, including his predecessor, George W. Bush, and the Republican House, for the current state of the economy.
While Romney talked about a clear path toward energy independence, the President talked about his support of coal and oil, although his policies have devastated the coal industry and hindered the development and transportation of domestic and Canadian oil that could dramatically decrease our dependence on oil from the Middle East and our prices at the pump. His rhetoric during the debate certainly hasn't matched his policy agenda.
Ask any coal miner if the President's policies have helped or hurt their industry and you'll receive a resounding answer: The President is killing their entire industry, one unreasonable EPA regulation at a time.
While the President proudly cited the jobs that have been created during his first term in office, Romney pointed out that the jobs created under the Obama Administration haven't even kept pace with population growth or the loss of jobs under this Administration. As Romney astutely and accurately explained, fewer Americans are working today than when this President took office. Romney also compared his exemplary record as a job creator in the private sector to the President's dismal record leading this country out of a recession.
While the President discussed how he would like to address comprehensive immigration reform in a second term, Romney promised that he would address this major issue in his first term as President. In contrast, the current President did nothing when he had a Democratically-controlled House and Senate for the first two years he was in office, and has done nothing since to move immigration forward in Congress.
While the President merely mentioned how he would like to reduce the deficit, Romney cited his own experience turning a deficit into a surplus as Governor of Massachusetts, while also pointing out that the current President has dramatically increased our nation's debt in just four years.
Simply put, the debate was a comparison of a leader with a proven record of achievements to a community organizer who would like more time to do what he's been unable to do or hasn't even attempted in four years. The debate came down to Romney talking about the record of what he's done as a business leader and governor -- creating jobs, reducing deficits and working across party lines -- compared to the President saying he would like to accomplish those same things if given another four years.
The debate featured a candidate spelling out his five-point plan to revitalize the American economy, with the President asking for more time to continue the same policies that have resulted in massive unemployment, record poverty and year-over-year slowing of our Gross Domestic Product.
In my 54 years on this Earth, I have never seen an election with such a stark contrast in the top two Presidential candidates. Although the President's rhetoric may sound soaring to some, his words ring hollow -- if you take the time to listen intently to what he has to say and closely examine his record of non-accomplishments.
I have to believe that Americans are smart enough to spot a used car salesman when they see and hear one. We'll all find out on November 6.
What amazed me while watching this debate the second time around was how little the President had to say in terms of his plans for a second term. Apparently he has no plans, except to enact more of the same failed policies that have devasted this country, especially the middle class, during the past four years.
In short, this President continues to be an empty suit of broken promises, a pathetic economic record and no articulated plans for the future. His only campaign strategy appears to be smearing Republican candidate Mitt Romney, a man with a proven record as a job creator and leader of government.
While Romney talked about how he worked collaboratively with Democrats to pass legislation while Governor of Massachusetts, the President blamed the Republicans, including his predecessor, George W. Bush, and the Republican House, for the current state of the economy.
While Romney talked about a clear path toward energy independence, the President talked about his support of coal and oil, although his policies have devastated the coal industry and hindered the development and transportation of domestic and Canadian oil that could dramatically decrease our dependence on oil from the Middle East and our prices at the pump. His rhetoric during the debate certainly hasn't matched his policy agenda.
Ask any coal miner if the President's policies have helped or hurt their industry and you'll receive a resounding answer: The President is killing their entire industry, one unreasonable EPA regulation at a time.
While the President proudly cited the jobs that have been created during his first term in office, Romney pointed out that the jobs created under the Obama Administration haven't even kept pace with population growth or the loss of jobs under this Administration. As Romney astutely and accurately explained, fewer Americans are working today than when this President took office. Romney also compared his exemplary record as a job creator in the private sector to the President's dismal record leading this country out of a recession.
While the President discussed how he would like to address comprehensive immigration reform in a second term, Romney promised that he would address this major issue in his first term as President. In contrast, the current President did nothing when he had a Democratically-controlled House and Senate for the first two years he was in office, and has done nothing since to move immigration forward in Congress.
While the President merely mentioned how he would like to reduce the deficit, Romney cited his own experience turning a deficit into a surplus as Governor of Massachusetts, while also pointing out that the current President has dramatically increased our nation's debt in just four years.
Simply put, the debate was a comparison of a leader with a proven record of achievements to a community organizer who would like more time to do what he's been unable to do or hasn't even attempted in four years. The debate came down to Romney talking about the record of what he's done as a business leader and governor -- creating jobs, reducing deficits and working across party lines -- compared to the President saying he would like to accomplish those same things if given another four years.
The debate featured a candidate spelling out his five-point plan to revitalize the American economy, with the President asking for more time to continue the same policies that have resulted in massive unemployment, record poverty and year-over-year slowing of our Gross Domestic Product.
In my 54 years on this Earth, I have never seen an election with such a stark contrast in the top two Presidential candidates. Although the President's rhetoric may sound soaring to some, his words ring hollow -- if you take the time to listen intently to what he has to say and closely examine his record of non-accomplishments.
I have to believe that Americans are smart enough to spot a used car salesman when they see and hear one. We'll all find out on November 6.
Saturday, October 13, 2012
The Voice of Reason: Biden's Debate Performance Is Microcosm of Obama Administration
Vice President Joe Biden had a great time at last Thursday's debate against Republican Vice Presidential Nominee Paul Ryan. For much of the 90-minute debate, Biden could be seen laughing, smiling and chuckling, even while Ryan was talking about the attack on the Libyan embassy that killed four Americans or about how Iran is drawing closer to building a nuclear weapon that could wipe Israel off the face of the Earth.
The majority of Americans probably thought that Senator Biden was arrogant and condescending to Congressman Ryan, but I view his performance in a slightly different way. I saw his debate performance as a microcosm of the Obama Administration.
Remember when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi urged her colleagues to pass Obamacare and that they could read it once it was passed? This landmark legislation was shoved down the throats of our elected representatives, or at least the Democratic ones. Not one Republican voted to support this legislation, and the President didn't care anyway. He had enough Democratic votes to pass the legislation, so he didn't need the votes from Republicans. As a result, the most expensive domestic bill ever passed did not even receive a single vote from the minority party.
Although some Americans may view this bill's passage as bold leadership, I view it a little differently. I see it as arrogance. "Trust us," was the message from the President and Democratic leadership. As a result, we have a law that was ruled Constitutional by the narrowest of margins in the Supreme Court and a Chief Justice that used convoluted reasoning to allow the law the stand. We also have a law that people are just now beginning to learn all of its tax and policy ramifications.
But this was not the only occasion when this Administration has displayed arrogance and condescension.
The debt limit crisis of 2011 is another example. According to Bob Woodward's book, "The Price of Power," a deal between the Republicans and Democrats to extend the debt limit was nearly torpedoed by a President who demanded more tax revenue after a deal has been made and who also had a temper tantrum when he did not get his way. Woodward also places blame on House Speaker John Boeher, but he notes a lack of Presidential leadership and that no one in the Administration had Boeher's phone number to remain in contact with him.
For much of the President's time in office, he has belittled and blamed Republicans, spent little to no time actually trying to build relationships with Republican members of Congress or even members of his own party. He has spent much of his term blaming his predecessor for everything and has yet to take responsibility for anything that has occurred under his watch. Yet the President expects Republicans and Democratic members of Congress to ask, "how high?" when he demands them to jump.
Since the passage of Obamacare, Congress hasn't jumped, as evidenced by the Rebublican-controlled House voting down the President's budget 414-0 in 2012, and the Democrat-controlled Senate voting down the President's budget 97-0 in 2011. Not one member of the President's own party voted for these budgets. The same arrogance that Vice President Biden displayed Thursday evening in the debate is undoubtedly the same attitude that the Administration has exhibited when dealing with Congress, so they're pushing back.
A leading member of Congress recently recently shared with a nationally-recognized political pundit that he had "met" the President twice in four years. This leading Congressman made it clear that he did not have a relationship with the President. Recent reports indicate that the President has only met with the top four members of Congress twice this year, although the country is racing towards a fiscal cliff because of the expiring Bush-era tax cuts at the end of this year. The President also recently admitted that he spends time with his family instead of schmoozing with Congress. The Great One apparently doesn't feel hat he has to do the work that other Presidents have done to collaborate with the Legislative Branch of the federal government.
Even the Administration's response to the Libyan embassy attacks smacks of arrogance. There have been so many different explanations for the attacks and lack of security from so many different members of the Administration that the American people as well as the news media are beginning to wonder who has been covering up what in this foreign policy debacle. One day after a representative from the State Department admitted that embassy staff had asked for additional security on several occasions, the Vice President said that "we" had not received any requests for additional security. The next day, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said that the royal "we" vocalized by Biden in the debate referred only to the Vice President and the President and not anyone else in the Administration.
Are you kidding me? This parsing of words reminds me of President Bill Clinton testifying about the meaning of "is."
While being interviewed by Fox News' Brett Baier, Deputy Campaign Manager Stephanie Cutter recently had the audacity to blame the Romney/Ryan campaign for trying to raise the issue of conflicting statements and potential coverup onto the national stage.
Clearly, if someone in the Obama Administration says something it has to be true and the American people, as well as the news media are expected to believe it. How dare anyone question the Obama Administration's truthfulness, even though its version of the truth changes almost hourly.
In his debate performance, Vice President Biden merely displayed the same attitude toward the opposition party, the American people and even the news media that the Obama Administration has exhibited the past four years.
Americans haven't experienced this level of executive arrogance since the Nixon Administration. Thankfully, the American people can put an end to this arrogance on Nov. 6.
The majority of Americans probably thought that Senator Biden was arrogant and condescending to Congressman Ryan, but I view his performance in a slightly different way. I saw his debate performance as a microcosm of the Obama Administration.
Remember when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi urged her colleagues to pass Obamacare and that they could read it once it was passed? This landmark legislation was shoved down the throats of our elected representatives, or at least the Democratic ones. Not one Republican voted to support this legislation, and the President didn't care anyway. He had enough Democratic votes to pass the legislation, so he didn't need the votes from Republicans. As a result, the most expensive domestic bill ever passed did not even receive a single vote from the minority party.
Although some Americans may view this bill's passage as bold leadership, I view it a little differently. I see it as arrogance. "Trust us," was the message from the President and Democratic leadership. As a result, we have a law that was ruled Constitutional by the narrowest of margins in the Supreme Court and a Chief Justice that used convoluted reasoning to allow the law the stand. We also have a law that people are just now beginning to learn all of its tax and policy ramifications.
But this was not the only occasion when this Administration has displayed arrogance and condescension.
The debt limit crisis of 2011 is another example. According to Bob Woodward's book, "The Price of Power," a deal between the Republicans and Democrats to extend the debt limit was nearly torpedoed by a President who demanded more tax revenue after a deal has been made and who also had a temper tantrum when he did not get his way. Woodward also places blame on House Speaker John Boeher, but he notes a lack of Presidential leadership and that no one in the Administration had Boeher's phone number to remain in contact with him.
For much of the President's time in office, he has belittled and blamed Republicans, spent little to no time actually trying to build relationships with Republican members of Congress or even members of his own party. He has spent much of his term blaming his predecessor for everything and has yet to take responsibility for anything that has occurred under his watch. Yet the President expects Republicans and Democratic members of Congress to ask, "how high?" when he demands them to jump.
Since the passage of Obamacare, Congress hasn't jumped, as evidenced by the Rebublican-controlled House voting down the President's budget 414-0 in 2012, and the Democrat-controlled Senate voting down the President's budget 97-0 in 2011. Not one member of the President's own party voted for these budgets. The same arrogance that Vice President Biden displayed Thursday evening in the debate is undoubtedly the same attitude that the Administration has exhibited when dealing with Congress, so they're pushing back.
A leading member of Congress recently recently shared with a nationally-recognized political pundit that he had "met" the President twice in four years. This leading Congressman made it clear that he did not have a relationship with the President. Recent reports indicate that the President has only met with the top four members of Congress twice this year, although the country is racing towards a fiscal cliff because of the expiring Bush-era tax cuts at the end of this year. The President also recently admitted that he spends time with his family instead of schmoozing with Congress. The Great One apparently doesn't feel hat he has to do the work that other Presidents have done to collaborate with the Legislative Branch of the federal government.
Even the Administration's response to the Libyan embassy attacks smacks of arrogance. There have been so many different explanations for the attacks and lack of security from so many different members of the Administration that the American people as well as the news media are beginning to wonder who has been covering up what in this foreign policy debacle. One day after a representative from the State Department admitted that embassy staff had asked for additional security on several occasions, the Vice President said that "we" had not received any requests for additional security. The next day, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said that the royal "we" vocalized by Biden in the debate referred only to the Vice President and the President and not anyone else in the Administration.
Are you kidding me? This parsing of words reminds me of President Bill Clinton testifying about the meaning of "is."
While being interviewed by Fox News' Brett Baier, Deputy Campaign Manager Stephanie Cutter recently had the audacity to blame the Romney/Ryan campaign for trying to raise the issue of conflicting statements and potential coverup onto the national stage.
Clearly, if someone in the Obama Administration says something it has to be true and the American people, as well as the news media are expected to believe it. How dare anyone question the Obama Administration's truthfulness, even though its version of the truth changes almost hourly.
In his debate performance, Vice President Biden merely displayed the same attitude toward the opposition party, the American people and even the news media that the Obama Administration has exhibited the past four years.
Americans haven't experienced this level of executive arrogance since the Nixon Administration. Thankfully, the American people can put an end to this arrogance on Nov. 6.
Monday, October 8, 2012
The Voice of Reason: Our Watchdog Media Is Sound Asleep
As a former journalist, I'm amazed at what passes for journalism today. Although I admit that I strongly support Republican Presidential nominee Mitt Romney, I don't pretend to be a journalist in this blog. Often through this blog, though, I have pointed out the obvious bias of those in the mainstream news media who are paid to report the news fairly and accurately.
In recent blogs, I wote about a recent revelation that would be covered extensively by the news media -- if a Republican President were in the White House. According to information uncovered by the ACLU, the Obama Administration has quadrupled the use of warrantless wiretaps.
Another story that seems to be developing almost by the hour is alleged attempts by the administration to cover up what it knew about the attack on our Libyan Embassy and when it knew it. Recent reports seem to indicate that although the administration attempted to frame the attack as the result of a "spontaneous" demonstration, others within the administration knew in the hours following the attack that it was well-planned and highly-coordinated. Reports are also now indicating that additional security for the embassy and the ambassador was requested in the days prior to the attacks, yet additional security was not provided.
But Barack Obama is President and it's clear that the vast majority of the left-leaning news media want him to win reelection, so we haven't seen as much coverage about these issues as we would if a Republican were in the White House. I thought I'd do some research to see just how biased the coverage has been.
I did an internet search using Google as my search engine to see which news media organizations have reported on these two major issues.
For the first search I entered the words, "Obama quadruples use of warrantless wiretaps," to see what I would discover. The first page I pulled up contained nine hits, only one of which was from the regular news media, Fox News. I also did a search using the same words, but omitted the word, "Obama," thinking that it might provide me with slightly different results. Again, the only regular news media hit was from Fox News.
While Fox News apparently found a story newsworthy about how warrantless wiretaps have been expanded, potentially infringing on the rights of millions of Americans, ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN apparently did not find the story important enough to report. Even after searching on the first three pages, I did not find a single instance of coverage by these mainstream media companies. Not one.
Next, I entered the words, "Libya cover up" to see what I would find. Again, going three pages deep in the search, I found extensive coverage by a wide variety of news organizations, including the Huffington Post, the Wall Street Journal and the National Review, but I did not find a single instance of coverage by ABC, CBS, NBC or CNN, other than one story by ABC News. That ABC News story popped up in my search only because a reader commenting on the story used the words, "cover up." Sadly, the only American daily newspaper that showed up in this search was the Washington Examiner, a conservative-leaning newspaper.
I was astonished at the lack of coverage by the mainstream news media on two major issues with national significance.
One other fact that amazed me was that I did not find a single instance of coverage by the nation's two leading newspapers, the Washington Post and the New York Times. The two mainstays of journalism that broke the Watergate story and the Pentagon papers, respectively, are apparently sitting on the sidelines regarding the vast expansion of surveillance powers by our federal government, the bungling of embassy security and a subsequent potential cover up to help a President win reelection.
The vaunted Fourth Estate, the watchdog for the American people, is sound asleep when it comes to watching this President and his administration.
In recent blogs, I wote about a recent revelation that would be covered extensively by the news media -- if a Republican President were in the White House. According to information uncovered by the ACLU, the Obama Administration has quadrupled the use of warrantless wiretaps.
Another story that seems to be developing almost by the hour is alleged attempts by the administration to cover up what it knew about the attack on our Libyan Embassy and when it knew it. Recent reports seem to indicate that although the administration attempted to frame the attack as the result of a "spontaneous" demonstration, others within the administration knew in the hours following the attack that it was well-planned and highly-coordinated. Reports are also now indicating that additional security for the embassy and the ambassador was requested in the days prior to the attacks, yet additional security was not provided.
But Barack Obama is President and it's clear that the vast majority of the left-leaning news media want him to win reelection, so we haven't seen as much coverage about these issues as we would if a Republican were in the White House. I thought I'd do some research to see just how biased the coverage has been.
I did an internet search using Google as my search engine to see which news media organizations have reported on these two major issues.
For the first search I entered the words, "Obama quadruples use of warrantless wiretaps," to see what I would discover. The first page I pulled up contained nine hits, only one of which was from the regular news media, Fox News. I also did a search using the same words, but omitted the word, "Obama," thinking that it might provide me with slightly different results. Again, the only regular news media hit was from Fox News.
While Fox News apparently found a story newsworthy about how warrantless wiretaps have been expanded, potentially infringing on the rights of millions of Americans, ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN apparently did not find the story important enough to report. Even after searching on the first three pages, I did not find a single instance of coverage by these mainstream media companies. Not one.
Next, I entered the words, "Libya cover up" to see what I would find. Again, going three pages deep in the search, I found extensive coverage by a wide variety of news organizations, including the Huffington Post, the Wall Street Journal and the National Review, but I did not find a single instance of coverage by ABC, CBS, NBC or CNN, other than one story by ABC News. That ABC News story popped up in my search only because a reader commenting on the story used the words, "cover up." Sadly, the only American daily newspaper that showed up in this search was the Washington Examiner, a conservative-leaning newspaper.
I was astonished at the lack of coverage by the mainstream news media on two major issues with national significance.
One other fact that amazed me was that I did not find a single instance of coverage by the nation's two leading newspapers, the Washington Post and the New York Times. The two mainstays of journalism that broke the Watergate story and the Pentagon papers, respectively, are apparently sitting on the sidelines regarding the vast expansion of surveillance powers by our federal government, the bungling of embassy security and a subsequent potential cover up to help a President win reelection.
The vaunted Fourth Estate, the watchdog for the American people, is sound asleep when it comes to watching this President and his administration.
Thursday, October 4, 2012
The Voice of Reason: Without Media Slant, Romney Wins Hands Down
I remember reading about an education study that illustrated how we treat someone and the expectations we have for that person is patterned after what we hear about that person. In the study, teachers were given erroneous information to trick them into thinking that the top-performing students in the class were the worst-performing students and vice versa. As a result, the teachers treated the top-performing students poorly and their grades suffered, while the low-performers were treated well and actually ended up with the top grades in the class.
The mainstream news media have essentially tried the same type of social experiment on the American people, telling them for months what to believe about each of the Presidential candidates. Television newscasts and newspaper coverage have hammered home the media's perceptions of each candidate's attributes. For Republican nominee Mitt Romney, the news media have reiterated that he is an uncaring business person who is losing the election because he isn't forceful enough, he only wants to look out for millionaires and is an ineffective communicator. For President Barack Obama, the news media have delivered continuous messaging that he connects well with the American people, is a strong leader and effecive communicator who is focusing on programs for the poor and middle class and will win the election.
Last night during the debate, the American people were able to make their own judgments about the candidates without the media filters of lliberal news coverage or the slant of political advertisements. They were able to compare and contrast the Republican nominee and his Democratic opponent while they were standing together on one stage.
What they saw wasn't pretty -- one of the worst beatings in American political debate history. What they saw was a complete disconnect with the perceptions of the candidates they have been spoon fed by the news media for months on end.
Romney showed a level of compassion that was the complete opposite of what Americans have been led to believe. He talked again and again about how Americans have been devastated by our current President's policies and that he would address these challenges as our President. Romney also showed that he was able to stand toe to toe with the President and forcefully make his points, even if it meant he had to essentially call the President a liar. Romney also emphasized throughout the evening how he wants to cut the tax rates for everyone, especially the middle class, but wants to limit deductions so that millionaires will continue to contribute the same amount of revenue. As for communication, Romney was able to present his case coherently and concisely, often using bullet-point-like descriptions of his plans that were easy for viewers to follow and understand. His communication style fit the format of the debate to a T.
On the other hand, the President rarely used examples that allowed him to connect with the average American and spent more energy looking down at the stage than staring at Romney, the American people watching their televisions or the audience. Every time the President attempted to tie Romney to promoting "tax cuts for the rich" with a flailing punch, the Republican would counter with a sharp jab that knocked the President back on his heels. The President's responses were often rambling, nearly incoherent phrases and sentences coupled together without any of the same clarity provided by his opponent.
At several points during the evening, moderator Jim Lehrer seemingly offered the President a lifeline, asking questions in a way that actually started to make the President's points for him. But the President continued to drown in his ocean of words -- separated by numerous uhs and ums -- that the American people could not follow and often could not fully comprehend. Although the moderator allowed the President to ramble on for minutes longer than his competitor, the more the President talked the less sense he made. More was not better.
Unlike what Americans have been led to believe the past several months by the news media, Romney looked and sounded Presidential, while the President sounded and acted like a third-rate, unprepared candidate still developing his pitch in the primary season. And while Romney was able to show Americans through examples and data that he has proven experience growing jobs, improving education, cutting taxes and working with members of the opposition party to pass legislation, the President was only able to ask the American people for another chance because he would like to do those things in a second term.
When even the most left-leaning news organizations reported that Romney clearly won the debate, you know that it had to have been a complete rout. NBC News anchor Tom Brokaw may have had the harshest criticism of the President of anyone, saying, "If it had been Romney performing like the President last night, it (the campaign) would have been over." I happen to agree. Even MSNBC couldn't spin the President's clear ineptitude into some false explanation of brilliance. The debate was so lopsided that I fully expected Rosie O'Donnell to jump out of the audience onto the stage and begin singing from "La Boheme."
I strongly believe that what we witnessed yesterday evening was the beginning of the end of the Obama Presidency. It can't come quickly enough for the American people, who are clearly struggling under this President's failed policies.
The mainstream news media have essentially tried the same type of social experiment on the American people, telling them for months what to believe about each of the Presidential candidates. Television newscasts and newspaper coverage have hammered home the media's perceptions of each candidate's attributes. For Republican nominee Mitt Romney, the news media have reiterated that he is an uncaring business person who is losing the election because he isn't forceful enough, he only wants to look out for millionaires and is an ineffective communicator. For President Barack Obama, the news media have delivered continuous messaging that he connects well with the American people, is a strong leader and effecive communicator who is focusing on programs for the poor and middle class and will win the election.
Last night during the debate, the American people were able to make their own judgments about the candidates without the media filters of lliberal news coverage or the slant of political advertisements. They were able to compare and contrast the Republican nominee and his Democratic opponent while they were standing together on one stage.
What they saw wasn't pretty -- one of the worst beatings in American political debate history. What they saw was a complete disconnect with the perceptions of the candidates they have been spoon fed by the news media for months on end.
Romney showed a level of compassion that was the complete opposite of what Americans have been led to believe. He talked again and again about how Americans have been devastated by our current President's policies and that he would address these challenges as our President. Romney also showed that he was able to stand toe to toe with the President and forcefully make his points, even if it meant he had to essentially call the President a liar. Romney also emphasized throughout the evening how he wants to cut the tax rates for everyone, especially the middle class, but wants to limit deductions so that millionaires will continue to contribute the same amount of revenue. As for communication, Romney was able to present his case coherently and concisely, often using bullet-point-like descriptions of his plans that were easy for viewers to follow and understand. His communication style fit the format of the debate to a T.
On the other hand, the President rarely used examples that allowed him to connect with the average American and spent more energy looking down at the stage than staring at Romney, the American people watching their televisions or the audience. Every time the President attempted to tie Romney to promoting "tax cuts for the rich" with a flailing punch, the Republican would counter with a sharp jab that knocked the President back on his heels. The President's responses were often rambling, nearly incoherent phrases and sentences coupled together without any of the same clarity provided by his opponent.
At several points during the evening, moderator Jim Lehrer seemingly offered the President a lifeline, asking questions in a way that actually started to make the President's points for him. But the President continued to drown in his ocean of words -- separated by numerous uhs and ums -- that the American people could not follow and often could not fully comprehend. Although the moderator allowed the President to ramble on for minutes longer than his competitor, the more the President talked the less sense he made. More was not better.
Unlike what Americans have been led to believe the past several months by the news media, Romney looked and sounded Presidential, while the President sounded and acted like a third-rate, unprepared candidate still developing his pitch in the primary season. And while Romney was able to show Americans through examples and data that he has proven experience growing jobs, improving education, cutting taxes and working with members of the opposition party to pass legislation, the President was only able to ask the American people for another chance because he would like to do those things in a second term.
When even the most left-leaning news organizations reported that Romney clearly won the debate, you know that it had to have been a complete rout. NBC News anchor Tom Brokaw may have had the harshest criticism of the President of anyone, saying, "If it had been Romney performing like the President last night, it (the campaign) would have been over." I happen to agree. Even MSNBC couldn't spin the President's clear ineptitude into some false explanation of brilliance. The debate was so lopsided that I fully expected Rosie O'Donnell to jump out of the audience onto the stage and begin singing from "La Boheme."
I strongly believe that what we witnessed yesterday evening was the beginning of the end of the Obama Presidency. It can't come quickly enough for the American people, who are clearly struggling under this President's failed policies.
Tuesday, October 2, 2012
The Voice of Reason: News Media Report News They Want You to Know
The Obama PR Machine, also known as the mainstream news media, has done a wonderful job spinning the news to reelect the President.
If a poll shows the President with a three-point lead, the story is that the President is gaining an even larger lead, even though the difference between the top candidates is within the margin of error. One recent story about polls showed that nationally the race is essentially tied, but that the President is building upon his lead in the key battleground states. Nevermind that the polling showing this growing lead was based on the survey of a grand total of 169 people in those states. Yes, I typed that number correctly -- 169.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/10/01/wapo-crafts-headline-out-of-poll-with-8-margin-of-error
If Republican Presidential nominee Mitt Romney makes a gaffe or something less-than-flattering comes out about his campaign, it will be the lead story on every evening newscast and an above-the-fold, front page story in every major newspaper. But when the President makes a mistake or news is revealed that puts his Presidency in a negative light, you will be lucky to find it covered with a 15-second piece at the 20-minute mark of the evening news or on page 17D of any major newspaper. The media bias has deteriorated so far that it should be clear to every American.
I usually don't use profanity in my blog, but it's gotten so bad that I will make an exception this time. The mainstream media have their heads so far up our President's ass that they're using his cheeks for earmuffs. It's hard to describe this obvious bias any other way.
The news media are doing the American people a great disservice. Millions of Americans will be making their choices at the polls on November 6 based largely on what information has been provided by the news media. Unfortunately,Americans haven't been privy to a lot of important issues and news, because the news media decided that much of this coverage would damage the President's chances of reelection.
I would venture a guess that 90% of the American people know that Romney was secretly taped talking about how 47% of the public are being dependent on government and probably won't vote for him. But I would bet you that fewer than 10% know that under President Obama the use of warrantless wiretaps has quadrupled, which means that our right to unreasonable search and seizures is being whittled away.
http://nation.foxnews.com/wiretapping/2012/09/28/aclu-obama-has-quadrupled-warrantless-wiretaps
I would bet that 90% of voters know that the Romneys own an expensive horse, which Mrs. Romney rides regularly. But I would bet almost anyone $100 that the vast majority of voters do not know that the same President who promised transparency oversees an administration in which 19 of 20 agencies have not lived up to the Freedom of Information Request (FOIA) laws.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-28/obama-cabinet-flunks-disclosure-test-with-19-in-20-ignoring-law.html
I would also say that 90% of Americans have heard something about how Romney likes to fire people (he was talking about firing people who don't provide him with quality service). But it's funny how little coverage Vice President Joe Biden received when he said today that the middle class has been "buried the last four years." Essentially, with that one statement, Biden admitted that the Obama Administration's policies have not worked for the middle class and that they are not better off than they were four years ago. If this gaffe were covered as extensively by the news media and in the same manner as any of Romney's minor gaffes have been, this would probably sink the President's campaign, and the news media would report that Romney has won the race with Biden's single blunder.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iOnbhdw9mLcs4XIBXl4xCMrTQILg?docId=afc1a1575f77421bae7873cecce07420
Almost everyone in America now knows that Romney is a Morman or that he supposedly bullied a classmate while in high school, thanks to extensive coverage of these issues. But do you think that the majority of Americans know that our President attended socialist conferences and listened intently to communist professors in college, or that some of his key influences growing up had Marxist leanings? Of course not, because the news media did not dig into the President's background with the same enthusiasm as they have probed into Romney's background. The sad part is that they didn't even have to dig at all to report this negative information, because the President admitted all of this and much, much more in his autobiography.
http://visionary102.wordpress.com/2012/08/27/frank-marshall-davis-cpusa-47544/
I would say that almost every American has heard that Romney said something about betting another Republican candidate $10,000, which made him look out of touch with the average American. Sadly, though, few Americans heard the President describe the recent attacks on our embassies in the Middle East, which included the deaths of four Americans, as mere "bumps in the road." The news media also failed to report that in the hours after the deaths of four Americans in a terrorist attack, the President attended a fundraiser in Las Vegas. If former President George W. Bush had attended a fundraiser after such an attack, he would have been vilified in the mainstream news media as uncaring and out of touch with Americans.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/obamas-60-minutes-wipeout/2012/09/24/acdcf2aa-063f-11e2-afff-d6c7f20a83bf_blog.html
The news media were all over Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's unfounded allegations about Romney being a tax cheat. Democratic operatives also strongly insinuated that Romney is a felon. These stories consumed the news for several weeks. But have you heard much about how the Obama Administration is telling defense contractors to ignore existing law by not informing employees who may be laid off because of budget cuts. Not only is the administration ignoring a law that the President strongly supported as a Senator, but it is also promising to pay the legal bills for those companies who comply with the administration's requests. The President and his henchmen would rather break the law than have millions of notices of impending pink slips sent to employees in states such as Virginia, which, coincidentally is one of the key battlegrounds. Do you think this decison to pay off defense contractors was done for political reasons?
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/10/at-white-house-request-lockheed-martin-drops-plan-to-issue-layoff-notices/
It's almost laughable when you look at what the news media had an opportunity to cover and what they covered extensively. The choices included a frank discussion of the growing entitlement society vs. infringement of the rights of tens of thousands of Americans, an expensive horse vs. ignoring transparency laws, a statement about getting rid of people who don't provide you with good service vs. an admission by the Vice President of four years of failed policies, coverage of a person's religious beliefs and allegations of pranks in high school vs. admitted interest and activities with communists and socialists while in college, an off-hand wager that most Americans can't afford vs. calling American deaths "bumps in the road," and unfounded allegations about tax avoidance vs. clearly breaking the law and paying off defense contractors to avoid bad news right immediately before the election.
Sadly, quality, unbiased journalism has died in America, and, as a result, Americans no longer can rely on most media outlets for their news. Today, Americans must rely on bloggers such as this one, Fox News and sources such as breitbart.com to learn all of the news, and not just that which the mainstream news media wants you to know.
If a poll shows the President with a three-point lead, the story is that the President is gaining an even larger lead, even though the difference between the top candidates is within the margin of error. One recent story about polls showed that nationally the race is essentially tied, but that the President is building upon his lead in the key battleground states. Nevermind that the polling showing this growing lead was based on the survey of a grand total of 169 people in those states. Yes, I typed that number correctly -- 169.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/10/01/wapo-crafts-headline-out-of-poll-with-8-margin-of-error
If Republican Presidential nominee Mitt Romney makes a gaffe or something less-than-flattering comes out about his campaign, it will be the lead story on every evening newscast and an above-the-fold, front page story in every major newspaper. But when the President makes a mistake or news is revealed that puts his Presidency in a negative light, you will be lucky to find it covered with a 15-second piece at the 20-minute mark of the evening news or on page 17D of any major newspaper. The media bias has deteriorated so far that it should be clear to every American.
I usually don't use profanity in my blog, but it's gotten so bad that I will make an exception this time. The mainstream media have their heads so far up our President's ass that they're using his cheeks for earmuffs. It's hard to describe this obvious bias any other way.
The news media are doing the American people a great disservice. Millions of Americans will be making their choices at the polls on November 6 based largely on what information has been provided by the news media. Unfortunately,Americans haven't been privy to a lot of important issues and news, because the news media decided that much of this coverage would damage the President's chances of reelection.
I would venture a guess that 90% of the American people know that Romney was secretly taped talking about how 47% of the public are being dependent on government and probably won't vote for him. But I would bet you that fewer than 10% know that under President Obama the use of warrantless wiretaps has quadrupled, which means that our right to unreasonable search and seizures is being whittled away.
http://nation.foxnews.com/wiretapping/2012/09/28/aclu-obama-has-quadrupled-warrantless-wiretaps
I would bet that 90% of voters know that the Romneys own an expensive horse, which Mrs. Romney rides regularly. But I would bet almost anyone $100 that the vast majority of voters do not know that the same President who promised transparency oversees an administration in which 19 of 20 agencies have not lived up to the Freedom of Information Request (FOIA) laws.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-28/obama-cabinet-flunks-disclosure-test-with-19-in-20-ignoring-law.html
I would also say that 90% of Americans have heard something about how Romney likes to fire people (he was talking about firing people who don't provide him with quality service). But it's funny how little coverage Vice President Joe Biden received when he said today that the middle class has been "buried the last four years." Essentially, with that one statement, Biden admitted that the Obama Administration's policies have not worked for the middle class and that they are not better off than they were four years ago. If this gaffe were covered as extensively by the news media and in the same manner as any of Romney's minor gaffes have been, this would probably sink the President's campaign, and the news media would report that Romney has won the race with Biden's single blunder.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iOnbhdw9mLcs4XIBXl4xCMrTQILg?docId=afc1a1575f77421bae7873cecce07420
Almost everyone in America now knows that Romney is a Morman or that he supposedly bullied a classmate while in high school, thanks to extensive coverage of these issues. But do you think that the majority of Americans know that our President attended socialist conferences and listened intently to communist professors in college, or that some of his key influences growing up had Marxist leanings? Of course not, because the news media did not dig into the President's background with the same enthusiasm as they have probed into Romney's background. The sad part is that they didn't even have to dig at all to report this negative information, because the President admitted all of this and much, much more in his autobiography.
http://visionary102.wordpress.com/2012/08/27/frank-marshall-davis-cpusa-47544/
I would say that almost every American has heard that Romney said something about betting another Republican candidate $10,000, which made him look out of touch with the average American. Sadly, though, few Americans heard the President describe the recent attacks on our embassies in the Middle East, which included the deaths of four Americans, as mere "bumps in the road." The news media also failed to report that in the hours after the deaths of four Americans in a terrorist attack, the President attended a fundraiser in Las Vegas. If former President George W. Bush had attended a fundraiser after such an attack, he would have been vilified in the mainstream news media as uncaring and out of touch with Americans.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/obamas-60-minutes-wipeout/2012/09/24/acdcf2aa-063f-11e2-afff-d6c7f20a83bf_blog.html
The news media were all over Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's unfounded allegations about Romney being a tax cheat. Democratic operatives also strongly insinuated that Romney is a felon. These stories consumed the news for several weeks. But have you heard much about how the Obama Administration is telling defense contractors to ignore existing law by not informing employees who may be laid off because of budget cuts. Not only is the administration ignoring a law that the President strongly supported as a Senator, but it is also promising to pay the legal bills for those companies who comply with the administration's requests. The President and his henchmen would rather break the law than have millions of notices of impending pink slips sent to employees in states such as Virginia, which, coincidentally is one of the key battlegrounds. Do you think this decison to pay off defense contractors was done for political reasons?
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/10/at-white-house-request-lockheed-martin-drops-plan-to-issue-layoff-notices/
It's almost laughable when you look at what the news media had an opportunity to cover and what they covered extensively. The choices included a frank discussion of the growing entitlement society vs. infringement of the rights of tens of thousands of Americans, an expensive horse vs. ignoring transparency laws, a statement about getting rid of people who don't provide you with good service vs. an admission by the Vice President of four years of failed policies, coverage of a person's religious beliefs and allegations of pranks in high school vs. admitted interest and activities with communists and socialists while in college, an off-hand wager that most Americans can't afford vs. calling American deaths "bumps in the road," and unfounded allegations about tax avoidance vs. clearly breaking the law and paying off defense contractors to avoid bad news right immediately before the election.
Sadly, quality, unbiased journalism has died in America, and, as a result, Americans no longer can rely on most media outlets for their news. Today, Americans must rely on bloggers such as this one, Fox News and sources such as breitbart.com to learn all of the news, and not just that which the mainstream news media wants you to know.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)