The Voice of Reason: President Obama Interviews for Job as CEO of America

HELP WANTED 
President of the United States
Searching for leader with proven experience as a chief executive officer and significant record of accomplishments. Must have experience growing revenue in the private or public sectors and promoting policies that create jobs. Must also have proven experience reaching across party lines in order to pass legislation into law. Needs to have proven experience addressing challenging budgetary issues, turning deficits into surpluses, and making tough budgetary choices. Also needs to inspire, communicate and lead a nation to prosperity.  Job will be available January 2013. Must be able to start work immediately.

An election is nothing more than lengthy job interview, with each candidate communicating his or her experience, record of accomplishments and vision for the future to the ultimate selection committee -- the voters --  in speeches, advertisements, appearances at events and a party convention. 

In the election of 2012, our incumbent President, Barack Obama, is facing a serious challenge from presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney because the President has not improved the standard of living for most Americans in his three and one-half years on the jobs.  Members of the selection committee -- voters -- have essentially reopened the job because the President’s performance has not lived up to the expectations of the people who selected him for the job in 2008.

Given the current state of our country, what would an interview entail for President Obama (BO), as he explains his experience and record of accomplishments to the head of our selection Committee, a fictional person named John Q. Public (JP)?   Let’s take a look at how this interview might proceed:

 JP: Thank you for meeting with us today, President Obama.

BO: It’s a pleasure to be here today. I just finished a round of golf and am heading to another fundraiser, so let’s make this quick.

JP:   I know that you're currently serving in this position.  The selection committee has decided to repost the job, but have given you a chance to re-apply.  That's why I'm interviewing you today -- to determine if you should be hired for another four years, or if we should go in another direction. 

BO:  I understand, but I think I've done a very good job.  The private sector is doing very well under my leadership and my economic plan has worked.

JP:  Your plan has worked?  I'll get to that in a few minutes. You'll have the opportunity to tell me about your record, but let's move through the interview questions.  Tell me about your experience as a chief executive officer.

BO: Well, I’ve been President of the United States for three and one-half years now.

JP: Prior to that, did you have CEO experience?

BO: I was a community organizer, state legislator and U.S. Senator.

JP: Had you led anything prior to becoming President, such as a major Senate Committee?

BO: No.

JP: Were you the CEO of a business or even a nonprofit organization?

BO: No.

JP: Have you even led a Cub Scout Troop?

BO: No.

JP: So, you essentially had no leadership experience prior to becoming President?

BO:  In college, I was president of the Harvard Law Review, and I was kind of the leader of a group in high school.   We smoked a lot of. . .but that’s another story.

JP: Well, tell me about your record of accomplishments as President.

BO: I was able to pass healthcare reform legislation and I shot Osama Bin Laden. I’ve also shot well over 100 rounds of golf and have attended more fundraisers than the last four Presidents combined at this point in their first term. As you can see, I’ve worked extremely hard and have accomplished great things.  Other than a couple of Presidents, including Abraham Lincoln, I would put our legislative accomplishments up against any President.

JP:   Let’s take a look at these accomplishments one at a time. Part of the job description is being able to work across party lines in order to pass legislation. How many Republican members of Congress voted for your healthcare plan?

BO: None.

JP: None?

BO: Zero.

JP: So not one member of the opposition party voted to support your landmark legislation?

BO: Not a one.

JP: And isn’t it true that the majority of the American public wants this law repealed?

BO: They just haven’t had time to read it. Even I haven’t had time to read it.  We're just learning what all Nancy Pelosi and the lobbyists put into the law.

JP: You also mentioned that you shot Osama Bin Laden?

BO: I didn’t actually shoot him as in pulling the trigger, but I made the decision to have him killed after obtaining intelligence where he was hiding. I did the tough part, making the decision. I thought about this decision for months. Valerie Jarrett told me that I should hold off, but after a few months of thinking about it, I decided to move forward.  That was a tough decision.

JP: You did the tough part?  Given Bin Laden's atrocities against the U.S., wouldn’t any President have made that decision?

BO: I don’t know. I don’t think that any Republican would have made that decision.

JP: Any President would have made that decision. Even Jimmy Carter would have ordered that raid on Bin Laden’s compound. Let’s talk about your other accomplishments. You’ve played golf and attended fundraisers?

BO: Yes, I’ve worked very hard. Some days I play a round of golf and then attend two fundraisers. It’s arduous work, but I love it.

JP: Have you met with your Jobs Council or Cabinet in the past six months?

BO: There hasn’t been a lot of time for that. I’ve had a lot on my plate with the golf and fundraisers. I think I've met with my Cabinet once, and my Jobs Council?  No so much.

JP: I’m sure you've been very busy.  You mentioned that your legislative accomplishments have been among the most impressive in American history. What other legislative accomplishments have you and your administration achieved?



BO: I can't think of anything right now, but I'll get back to you later if I think of something.


JP:   Let's move on to another topic.  Tell me about your experience growing revenues and adding jobs. 

BO: In my first term, 4.5 million jobs have been created.

JP: But aren’t there fewer Americans working than when you were elected?

BO: Yes, but you have to look at how many jobs we’ve created.   After all, George Bush. . .

JP: President Obama, this interview is about you. You’ve been on the job nearly four years now and have had enough time to show us what you can do.  Hasn't the unemployment rate increased since you took office? 

BO:  Yes, it has, but 4.5 million jobs have been created.

JP:  But how many jobs have been lost and how many new people have entered the workforce?  You do know that America needs to add up to 200,000 jobs a month just to break even, don't you?

BO:  Yes, but we've created 4.5 million jobs.

JP:  I heard that the first time you said it, but that statistic doesn't tell whether we're gaining ground, treading water or losing ground.   If my numbers are correct, we have nearly 500,000 fewer jobs than the day you were inaugurated.  The recent jobs report was also a downer.  Only 96,000 jobs were created and nearly 375,000 people stopped looking for work, but let's move on.  Let’s talk about the budget. Have you been able to balance the budget or at least slow down the growing debt?

BO. No. The debt has increased by 50%.

JP: Fifty percent? Are you kidding? Did I hear you correctly?

BO:  The debt has increased by 50% since I took office.  It's now at $16 trillion.  But we had to spend a lot of money to get the economy going.  That's the job of government.  We would have made more progress on jobs but the shovel ready projects we thought we were paying for weren't quite shovel ready.  After all, government, not entrepreneurs, build businesses.

JP:   What?  I don't believe what I'm hearing. 

BO:  Those business owners, they didn't build those businesses.

JP: So who built them?

BO:  They got a lot of help from the government.

JP:  Let's get back to the stimulus. So, essentially, nearly a trillion dollars in stimulus dollars was wasted?  Is that what you're saying?

BO:  It wasn't all wasted.

JP:  What about the debt?  So you haven't cut the debt even one cent?

BO: Well, George Bush. . .

JP: Again, Mr. President, this interview is about you. Every President faces issues left over from his predecessor when he takes office. You didn’t hear George Bush complain that he had to face the terrorist attacks on 9/11 because Bill Clinton didn’t have Bin Laden killed when he had the chance. But let’s move on. Tell me about your last two budgets.

BO: I really haven’t had one. But it's the responsibility of Congress to. . .

JP: What do you mean you haven’t had one?

BO: Well, Congress never got around to passing mine or one of their own.

JP: Didn’t you propose budgets in 2011 and 2012?

BO: Yes.

JP: Well, what happened? Why didn’t Congress pass your budgets?

BO: The Senate voted them down.

JP: They voted them down in the Senate?  What was the tally of the votes?

BO: 97-0 and 99-0.

JP:   But didn’t your party control the Senate both of those years?

BO: That’s right, but the Republicans. . .

JP: So, you couldn’t get a single vote for your proposed budgets even though your own party controlled the Senate?

BO: That’s right.

JP: Doesn’t that seem to indicate that even your own party won’t follow you? Doesn’t that also show a lack of leadership on your part as a CEO, not pressing Congress to actually do its job? This is basic stuff.   No organization should operate without a budget.

BO: Well, the Republicans. . .

JP: But your party controlled the Senate. So, you’re operating without a budget passed by Congress?

BO: That’s right.

JP: Well, let’s get to the last part of the job. Are you an inspiring person, President Obama?

BO: Yes, I am. MSNBC's Chris Matthews even said that he gets tingles up his leg when I speak.

JP: Chris Matthews is an absolute idiot. I think he just has a bladder problem.  He probably meant he tingles down his own leg.

BO: In 2008 people were fainting when I spoke and I inspired thousands of young people to vote for the first time.  Hope and Change.  Hope and Change.

JP: That’s great, but inspiration is one thing, and slogans are another. Actually getting something accomplished is the role of the President. What is the level of excitement for you now among the American people?

BO: It's kind of waning.  I don't understand. 

JP: Let’s review to make sure I have this information right.  Other than your experience as President, you have zero CEO experience. You made the deficit worse, and you've been unable to get Americans back to work. You've been unable to reach across party lines to get legislation passed, even a budget when your party controlled the Senate. You were able to pass healthcare legislation, but the majority of Americans don't want it. Under your watch, Navy Seals were able to kill Osama Bin Laden, and you’re a great speaker who makes Chris Matthews all tingly.   Does that pretty much sum it up?

BO: I think you’ve covered it. 

JP: President Obama, I have to say that I’m disappointed in your performance.

BO: Well, the Republicans, and George Bush. . .

JP: Mr. President, a true leader inspires and cajoles the other party to move to his side of the fence, or he meets them somewhere in the middle.  You haven't done either.

BO: But I promise I’ll compromise more if I’m just given another chance.  I need more time.

JP: About that other chance. I’m not so sure you will be given another chance.

BO: When will I find out if I’ve got the job again? Michelle is planning a few vacations for us and the kids in 2013.  We're planning to travel to all 57 states, as well as Australia, New Zealand, Russia, China, South Korea, England, Ireland. . .

JP: November 6, Mr. President.   We'll make our decision on that day. That day can’t come fast enough, as far as I’m concerned.  Thanks for interviewing again for the job. But, please, please, don’t call us, we’ll call you.

The Voice of Reason: Helping Mainstream News Media Do Their Jobs

My blog on Thursday centered around watching the NBC evening newscast and being amazed at the anti-Republicant slant to the news. 

Almost any impartial organization researching the quality of the news coverage in the 2008 and 2012 elections has noticed that the coverage of Barack Obama as a candidate in 2008 and as the incumbent in 2012 has been overwhelmingly positive. Conversely, the coverage of Republican nominee John McCain was extremely negative in 2008 and the coverage of the 2012 presumptive Republican nominee, Mitt Romney, has also been negative.

Last week, President Obama held his first news conference in months.  Despite their dearth of opportunities to ask him questions in recent months, the reporters attending this news conference seemingly could not think of tough questions to ask a President who has presided over the worst economic recovery since the Great Depression and over an economy in which 23 million Americans are out of work, underemployed or have simply given up looking for a job. 

Amazing.

I know that they're busy, so I thought I would help them out by suggesting a few questions that they might ask the President at their next opportunity.  Here are just a few that I believe the American people would like answered:

• Mr. President, while answering a question about the tone of your campaign in your recent news conference, you said that no one had called Mitt Romney a felon.  However, your own deputy campaign director, Stephanie Clutter, strongly insinuated that Governor Romney had committed a felony?  Would you like to clarify your position?
• Mr. President, a super PAC headed by former members of your staff and administration have run an advertisement strongly suggesting that Governor Romney was responsible for a woman's cancer death.  However, after checking into the facts, one learns that Governor Romney had left Bain Capital before the company in question went bankrupt and that the woman had her own health insurance anyway, which she lost after an accident at her work.  Considering the misleading nature of this advertisement, and although your campaign didn't pay for it, would you like to repudiate this advertisement as false and/or misleading?
• Mr. President, over the past three and a half years, you have presided over the economy, yet the vast majority of economic indicators have not improved.  Considering that what you have tried so far hasn't created the type of results you predicted, what would you do differently in a second term to revive the economy?
• Mr. President, you and your campaign have criticized Governor Romney and Representative Paul Ryan for their plans to address the growth of entitlement programs, yet you have not offered your own plan.  What is your plan to slow the growth of entitlement programs so that they not only cover today's seniors, but also are available to the next generation of Americans?
• Mr. President, your campaign has run advertisements indicating that Representative Ryan's plan to address the rising cost of Medicare would end the current program for seniors.  Mr. Ryan's current plan does not change the existing Medicare program for anyone 55 and over.  Isn't it misleading to scare the American people by telling them that Representative Ryan would end Medicare for today's seniors?
• Mr. President, you have called Governor Romney and Representative Ryan "radicals" and "extremists" for their plans to cut the growth of entitlement programs and to cut the federal budget so that America's debt can be reduced.  What is your plan to cut the federal budget and to reduce America's debt?
• Mr. President, America has not operated under a budget passed by Congress since the last budget of the Bush Administration.  What would you tell the average American who has to live within his or her budget, but realizes that our leaders haven't passed a budget in over three years and essentially are operating with an open checkbook?
• Mr. President, your campaign is running an advertisement in Ohio and Pennsylvania touting your support of the coal industry, yet your own EPA has proposed new regulations that according to experts would mean there would be no new coal-fired power stations built in the U.S. after those currently in the works are completed.  Can you explain your position and record on coal?
• Mr. President, with dozens of coal-fired power stations closing because of EPA regulations, experts are predicting that electricity rates will increase dramatically for customers across the U.S.  In fact, you said while campaigning in 2008 that electricity rates would "necessarily skyrocket" based on what you planned to do with coal.  What do you tell the American family that is having trouble making ends meet, but will soon be facing even higher electric bills?
• Mr. President, according to some sources, your Harvard yearbook cites you as being "Kenyan-born," and the biography used by your book publisher indicated for over a decade that you were "Kenyan-born."  Did you claim on your college entrance paperwork that you were foreign born in order to take advantage of scholarship and entrance opportunites that would not have been afforded to you if you had indicated you were American-born? Would you mind authorizing Harvard, Occidental or Columbia to release those documents?
• Mr. President, your deputy campaign manager, Stephanie Clutter, recently said that more jobs have been created in the past 27 months than following the recessions faced by President Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush.  Numerous experts researching the facts have said that this is incorrect, that 200,000 more jobs were created during the Bush Administration and that nearly twice as many jobs were created during the Reagan Administration.  Would you like to clarify comments made by Ms. Clutter?
• Mr. President, you and members of your staff continue to tout the fact that 4.5 million jobs have been created during your administration.  However, fewer Americans are working today than in 2000, although our population has grown by 31 million and our labor force has increased by over 11 million.  Isn't it misleading to continue to publicize the number of jobs created, when we're clearly losing ground and not enough jobs are being created month after month to meet the needs of our growing population?
• Mr. President, you have blamed your predecessor much of your first term for the state of the eocnomy.  At what point does the economy becomes yours and you take full responsibility for its results?
• Mr. President, you promised to cut the deficit in half by the end of your first term, and you also said that if you were unable to turn around this economy that your Presidency would be a one-term proposition.  Mr. President, do you deserve to be reelected, given you have not met the level of expectations you set for yourself in order to be elected to a second term?
• Mr. President, what is the difference between a venture capitalist such as Bain Capital investing in companies and the government investing in companies like Solyndra?
• You often criticize Governor Romney and Bain Capital for trying to make a profit.  What is wrong with a private company working to make a profit? If Bain Capital were unable to make a profit, wouldn't it put all the companies they owned and managed in jeopardy, putting hundreds of thousands of jobs at risk?
• Mr. President, when campaigning for the Affordable Care Act, you told Americans that they would see their health care premiums decrease by $2,500, and that they would be able to keep their same doctor and their same health care plan.  Instead, Americans have seen their health care premiums increase by $2,500 in the past year, businesses are no longer sponsoring health care insurance because it will be cheaper to pay the penalty than to purchase insurance, and patients are having to switch doctors because of the health care plans to which they are being switched. What would you say to the American people about these changes in their health care coverage that they did not anticipate -- that you apparently did not anticipate?

Maybe the mainstream new media aren't as informed as they would like us to think they are, or perhaps the media is so far in the President's corner that they are unwilling to ask any question of substance. I sincerely believe it's more of the latter than the former, given their biased coverage of the candidates in 2008 and 2012.

This should disgust any American. Americans expect the Fourth Estate to play a vital role in keeping the three branches of government honest by asking tough questions the American people want answered and by investigating the words and deeds of our government. 

Clearly, the Fourth Estate hasn't been doing its job. Americans deserve better.



  

 



   

The Voice of Reason: Election of 2012 Will Be Our Second Most Important

The Presidential Election of 2012 will undoubtedly be viewed by historians in 100 years as the second most important election in American history.

The first election, of course, was the most important election in our country's history.  A young nation was willing to award king-like power to our first President.  Fortunately, the leader of the Revolutionary War, George Washington, won the election and became the model for future Presidents.  Instead of grabbing for the almost-unlimited power available to him, Washington cautiously navigated the separation of powers outlined in the Constitution, realizing that the fledgling nation needed to move toward the democratic vision of our founding fathers, instead of the monarchy model found in England.

Just as the outcome of the first election determined whether or not America would resemble a democracy or monarchy, this year's election will determine whether America moves  towards a European-style democracy that borders (or crosses into) socialism or will return to being the country our founding fathers envisioned when writing the Constitution.

To those who believe strongly in the Constitution, the choice should be crystal clear.  But for those who are the beneficiaries of a strong federal government and its numerous social programs that support them, the choice may be more difficult.

Currently about half of the country benefits from big government programs, while the other 50% pay for them.  While a little more than 50% of Americans pay income taxes, nearly 50% do not.  President Barack Obama's policies to "redistribute the wealth" have only encouraged more Americans to apply for unemployment, disability, welfare, food stamps and numerous other government programs.  For many, the monetary compensation and benefits they receive for not working is close to the compensation and benefits they would receive for working. Why would anyone work if they could stay at home and live nearly as well, especially when the horrific Obama economy has limited their opportunities for a decent income?

The sad part is that many Americans have simply given up trying to improve their lots in life.  Many have found it easier to maintain a minimal standard of living -- and the Obama Administration has encourged this through the expansion of numerous social programs. The result is that more and more Americans are living on less than they were before President Obama was elected.  A recent report recently revealed that the median household income for Americans of all ages was 4.8% lower in June 2012 than it was when the recovery technically started three years earlier, in June 2009.
http://www.startribune.com/nation/167272875.html?refer=y 

America is quickly becoming a country that encourages mediocrity instead of exceptionalism. In fact, in a recent speech, President Obama downplayed the importance of intelligence and hard work in determining one's success. His views about how government -- not intelligence and hard work --determine the success of Americans provide an excuse for any American who is not successful:  They simply haven't received enough support from government to succeed.

President Obama's policies, attitudes and actions have strongly communicated that America is no longer the place where an individual can save money, build a business and become an overwhelming success.  To the President, if someone is successful, it is because the federal government, not the individual, made it happen.  To President Obama, the American dream is dead, unless the government gives you that dream. 

Very early in a second Obama term, more Americans will be supported by the government than those who are supporting the government through taxes. President Obama has made it very clear he wants the most successful Americans to pay even higher taxes, which will provide them with a financial disincentive to suceeed.  More American businesses and high net worth individuals will move offshore, avoiding America's regressive tax policies, which will create even more unemployment.  As a result, more Americans will determine that it's easier to stay at home and receive a check than to head out to work every day. Those lucrative benefits offered by the government will eventually have to be cut dramatically, or taxes will have to be increased on more Americans to pay for them. The middle class, dwindling because of the loss of American jobs, will not be spared from the dramatic tax increases. In order to pay for these programs, even with higher taxes, America will plunge more deeply in debt, creating a Greece-like financial disastor in our country within the next four years and eroding the standard of living for all Americans. The interest alone on the national debt will soon consume the majority of the federal budget, so much so that other countries will no longer loan us funds to continue our spending spree.

President Obama is a proponent of big government, more social programs, government takeovers of business (i.e., GM and the healthcare system) and the government, not the free market, picking winners and losers (i.e., trying his best to kill the coal industry through EPA regulations, while supporting alternative energy companies like Solyndra).  In other words, he believes in a European-style of democracy that is more like socialism than a capitalistic, democratic society.

The antidote for this imminent disastor is for America to grow its economy, get people off their couches and back to work, provide incentives for Americans to succeed and build businesses, get its federal budget under control, and slow the growth of entitlement and social programs so that they don't bankrupt the country and are available for future generations of Americans. In other words, America needs to become America again, allowing the principles of capitalism to determine winners in the marketplace, while limiting the powers of the federal government.

The Obama Administration has shown no indication whatsoever that it's willing to promote pro-growth, pro-business policies; provide incentives for Americans to grow businesses; or to slow the growth of entitlement programs.  In fact, President Obama appears to be diametrically opposed to making any of the difficult choices necessary to prevent the impending financial disastor.

In contrast, Republican nominee Mitt Romney and his running mate, Paul Ryan, are proposing pro-growth, pro-business policies; incentives for people to grow businesses; and a revamping of entitlement programs for those 54 and younger so that these programs are available to future generations of Americans.

While many Americans see the choice in November between Democrats and Republicans, others see this election as a pivotal decision point in American history.  The fact is that if America continues down its current path in a second Obama term, it will never return to a free-market system of capitalism with limited federal government.  

Americans voted wisely in 1789 and set our country on a course that would allow it to dominate economically and militarily for over 200 years.  Are Americans just as wise today, or will they succumb to the appeal of government programs that allow them to have a mediocre standard of living while doing nothing?

We will find out on November 6.




 





  

The Voice of Reason: Is NBC News on Obama's Payroll?

While at home about a week ago, I turned on NBC Nightly News to see how this once well-respected news organization is covering the upcoming Presidential election.

The newscast started out with a piece about Missouri Representative, Republican Todd Akin, who communicated some idiotic beliefs about women having difficulty becoming pregnant after being raped.  Next up was a short piece about President Barack Obama's news conference, with footage of him asking why presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney would not release more years of tax returns.  The third piece was about a trip to the Middle East in which a Republican member of Congress went skinny dipping.  Together, these three stories consumed about one third of the newscast. 

The remainder of the newscast consisted of non-campaign issues, including segments about former talk show host Rosie O'Donnell surviving a heart attack by taking an aspiran, the death of comedienne Phyllis Diller and the passing of Scott McKenzie, who performed the 1967 ballad, "San Francisco."

Three cold, hard facts stood out about this newscast:  1) A third of the newscast was consumed with pieces that put Republicans in a negative light; 2) there was no mention of major issues affecting America, including the skyrocketing debt, the unemployment and underemployment of 23 million Americans, or the impending insolvency of entitlement programs; and 3) the quality of NBC News has deteriorated significantly from the days of the well-respected and legendary Huntley-Brinkley Report.

After watching the newscast that evening, I wondered if NBC News is being paid by the Obama Campaign.  In reality, a public relations firm paid by the Obama Campaign couldn't have done a better job of spinning the news so that it is favorable to President Obama than NBC News did on that particular newscast.  It was that biased.

As a trained journalist, I am appalled and angry at how far journalism has fallen. I am also saddened that there are so few journalists who will report the story and actually take the time to check the facts and statistics spewed by campaigns.

Recent news coverage by the mainstream news media has focused on Akin's stupid remarks, the Obama Campaign continuing to ask for Romney to release more tax returns and other issues that won't help put Americans back to work or stop our country's sprint towards bankruptcy.

Ignoring major challenges facing the country is one issue, allowing outright lies to be broadcast without confronting them is another.

Earlier this week the President's deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter said that more jobs had been created in the past 27 months than following the recessions faced by Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.  She implied that President Obama has done a better job at managing the economy following a recession than the two Republicans.

The facts are that the Bush recovery created 200,000 more jobs than the Obama recovery, using the same methodology cited by Cutter, and the Reagan recovery created about twice as many jobs.
http://news.investors.com/article/623290/201208231729/obama-created-half-as-many-jobs-as-reagan.htm

As President Obama said in a recent news conference, "You can't make this stuff up." Actually, Mr. President, your deputy campaign manager is doing just that. And she's done it more than once.

A few news organizations, including Investor's Business Daily and Fox News have challenged Cutter's outright lie with undisputable facts.  Most others, including NBC News, haven't taken the time to check to see if what Cutter said was actually true.

Earlier this week, the President was asked in his news conference about the tone of his campaign.  He was questioned specifically about his campaign insinuating that Romney may have committed a felony.  President Obama replied, "Well, first of all I am not sure that all of those characterizations that you laid out there were accurate. For example, nobody accused Mr. Romney of being a felon."
http://www.examiner.com/article/obama-denies-campaign-called-romney-a-felon-surprise-press-appearance

Again, this was an outright lie. Cutter said in a recent interview, “Either Mitt Romney, through his own words and his own signature, was misrepresenting his position at Bain to the SEC, which is a felony, or he was misrepresenting his position at Bain to the American people to avoid responsibility for some of the consequences of his investments." 

Maybe Cutter didn't come straight out and call Romney a felon, but the insinuation was strong enough to make some uninformed voters believe Romney is a felon.

Not one member of the media at that news conference had the intestinal fortitude to point out to the President that one of the highest ranking members of his campaign had indeed strongly hinted that Romney had committed a felony. And only a few, including Fox News, reported in later reports the discrepancy between what the President said and the truth.

In that same news conference earlier this week, the President had the audacity to say, "We point out sharp differences between the candidates, but we don’t go out of bounds.”

Out of bounds? Would you call broadcasting a Super PAC ad accusing Romney of contributing to the cancer death of a woman "out of bounds?"  Or would you consider insinuating that Romney is a tax cheat "out of bounds?"  What about the Senate Majority Leader saying that the "word's out" Romney hadn't paid any federal income taxes in 10 years?  Would you consider that accusation from unnamed sources on the floor of the Senate to be "out of bounds?"

Again, not one member of the media challenged the President.

Even the online news media versions of major news media have been piling on the Republicans.  Yesterday, CNN.com featured a front page article about how the Republican convention in Tampa will mean better business for area strip clubs. The fact of the matter is that almost any convention results in increased business for area strip clubs.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/23/politics/tampa-gop-strip-clubs/index.html

I wonder if this same website will do a feature about how the Democratic Convention in Charlotte will result in more business for  strip clubs?  I would venture a guess that we won't see similar negative coverage prior to that convention. I wouldn't be surprised, though, to see glowing features about the Democratic Convention on almost every website and news broadcast for the mainstream news media in the days before the Democrats head to Charlotte.


The lamestream news media is clearly in the tank for the Obama Campaign and might as well be on his campaign's payroll.  It's become that biased. 

We can only hope that the American people dig a little deeper than watching NBC Nightly News or reading CNN.com to learn about the major issues facing this country and to determine what is the truth and what is a bold-faced lie.

The Voice of Reason: Headlines We'll See if Obama is Reelected

If you're a news junkie like I am, you read newspapers, watch television, listen to radio and browse the internet trying to keep up with what's going on in our country and the world.
 

During the past three and a half years, we've seen thousands of headlines in the newspaper about the current administration.  But I wonder, what would the headlines in American newspapers be like if President Obama is given another four years?   Here are a few headlines I strongly believe we'll see,  given the radical political views of our current President and the current direction of our country:

• EPA Orders All Remaining Coal Plants to Close

• Unemployment Tops 8% for 60th Straight Month

• National Debt Increases to $22 Trillion

• Unemployment Tops 10% for 10th Straight Month

• Unemployment for Blacks Tops 30%

• More Americans Now on Disability, Unemployment than Working

• Average American Sees 75% Increase in Electricity

• Power Grid at Breaking Point:  Not Enough Power Plants to Power America

• Half of America Dark During Week-long Blackout

• Americans Turn Violent without Jobs, Power

• EPA Turns Attention to Natural Gas, Oil

• Americans Paying $8.25 for Gasoline; Prices Headed Higher

• Obamacare Produces Three Month Wait for Office Visit

• President, Congress Raise Taxes on All Americans to Pay for Programs

• Millions Take to Streets to Protest President's Policies

• Standard of Living for Americans Lowest Since Great Depression

The sad part is that not even one of these headlines is out of the realm of possibility.  In fact, given the direction this country is headed and our President's policies, I believe that the vast majority of these headlines have a high probability of being seen in our newspapers in the coming four years.

Do I see the unemployment rate remaining above 8%?  Yes. Do I see the unemployment rate heading above even 10%. Yes, I do, especially if the President continues his anti-business, anti-growth policies, which he'll do if he's reelected.

Do I truly see coal being phased out as an energy source?  Absolutely. Millions of Americas employed by coal directly and indirectly will be out of jobs.

Do I foresee America's power grid in grave danger?  Yes, I do.  With so many coal plants being shut down and even tougher EPA regulations on the drawing board -- with politics now driving America's energy policy -- our nation's reliable supply of electricity is at risk.

Do I see the EPA turning its attention to natural gas and oil after it has destroyed coal?  Absolutely.  The Obama Administration is against all fossil fuels that are extracted from the earth.  The Obama Administration wouldn't even approve the Keystone Pipeline, which would have provided millions of barrels of oil from our neighbor to the north, Canada.

Do I see gasoline at over $8 a gallon?  Any conflict in the Middle East, coupled with our President's "head in the sand" energy policy, could cause gas prices to top $10 a gallon.

Do I think that the President and Congress will raise taxes on all working Americans to fund their social programs?  Absolutely.  Raising taxes on only the wealthiest Americans won't raise enough revenue.  The math just doesn't add up.

Do I see mass protests and a standard of living for Americans close to what we faced during the Great Depression?  Without a doubt.  We are heading towards a financial cliff with soaring debt, economic stagnation and millions more on various government programs.  Again, the math just doesn't add up.

Some may think I'm being an alarmist.  I happen to think that I'm being a realist.  Knowing that he won't have to run again, our President will be free to do what he wants in a second term, which will result in an expansion of the policies he enacted in his first term.

We have a choice this election, and I believe that choice is crystal clear.

 

 

The Voice of Reason: Obama's BS vs. Ryan's Substance

On almost every television talking heads program, in nearly every newspaper article and on every radio talk show, Democrat operatives have been using the same words from scripted talking points
to describe Republican Vice President nominee, Paul Ryan.

Extreme.  Radical.  Right wing idealogue.

The reason they are doing this is very simple.  President Barack Obama cannot run on his record of 40-plus months of unemployment over 8%, our national debt increasing by half (50%) under the President's watch although he promised to cut it in half, and the worst economic recovery since the Great Depression. President Obama's only hope at being reelected is to make the Republican option so unsettling to voters that they will reluctantly vote for the President in the November election. 

This is the reason why a Democrat super PACs developed an ad accusing Republican nominee Mitt Romney of causing a woman's cancer death.  This is why the Democrats, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, made outrageous claims that Romney might be a felon and that the "word's out" that Romney didn't pay federal income taxes for 10 years.  This is also why leaders in the Obama Campaign tried their best to smear Romney's work at Bain Capital.

Advantage Obama. 

Democratic operatives realized that every day the Romney Campaign was forced to answer questions from the news media about the despicable "cancer" ad, every day that the news media kept the story alive about Romney's tax returns and every day the news media asked about Bain Capital was one more day that the Obama Campaign didn't have to talk about the principal issues in this campaign -- the dismal economy and an unfathomable debt that will be passed on to our children, grandchildren and great grandchildren.

But as soon as Romney announced that Ryan was his pick, the Democrats changed course and began attacking Ryan on Medicare, thinking that they had found a weakness that would allow them to continue to paint the Republican ticket as unacceptable to voters. Democrats immediately began making the rounds with reporters and various talk shows, using the Democrat script to paint Ryan as a radical right winger who would cut off granny's Medicare.

Instead of being defensive, though, Romney and Ryan became even aggressive, pointing out that President Obama stole $700 million from Medicare to pay for Obamacare. The Republic tandem also began talking about using Ryan's proposed budget as a framework to save entitlement programs, pointing out that President Obama and the Democrats had not proposed any plan whatsover in three and half years although the programs faced insolvency for future generations. The focus shifted from the earlier distractions of taxes, Bain Capital and the "cancer" ad to talking about saving entitlement programs and addressing the ballooning national debt. By learning about what the Republicans would be proposing, which was not to change Medicare for current recipients and those 55 or older, voters were able to see that the Democrats' plan of "doing nothing" is much more radical and extreme than the Republicans' framework to save much-needed entitlement programs for current and future generations of Americans.

Advantage Romney and Ryan.

The Democrats also discovered in the past week that it is nearly impossible to attack Ryan, a good-looking 42-year-old fitness freak, husband and father, who spends as little time as possible in Washington, traveling home to soccer games in Wisconsin on the weekends.  Democrats also found that this young leader is literally a rock star on the campaign trail, bringing in huge crowds everywhere he goes, inspiring them while talking about serious issues and framing them in a way that the average person can understand. President Obama and the Democrats also found that Ryan is able to disagree with them over substantive issues in a way that doesn't stoop to the gutter politics level of the Democrats, but instead attacks their positions with logic, numbers and good old common sense.  Americans like that.

In short, President Obama is now facing an adept communicator, Ryan, who can not only inspire voters, which is Obama's strongpoint, but Ryan can do it by providing substantive solutions and facts, which is something Obama has never been able to do.  Substance will win over bullshit every time.

Advantage Romney and Ryan.

The change in just one week has been palpable.  Romney and Ryan are raking in millions of dollars in donations and attracting tens of thousands at rallies they attend individually and together.  Romney appears to be energized, stepping up his game in a way that has impressed even his staunchest critics. In contrast, President Obama and Vice President Joe Biden have been struggling to raise money and the crowds attending their campaign stops don't appear to be energized or anywhere near the size of the Romney/Ryan crowds.  While Ryan seemingly can fill stadiums with potential voters, Biden has trouble filling a large room.  And Biden, well, is Biden, often saying the most inappropriate things, trying to be funny, trying to appeal to the Democrats' base, but alienating members of that base as well as independents.

In one week, the campaign has changed dramatically.  According to numerous sources, the Obama Campaign is unsettled, confused by the turn of events.  They've tried smear tactics, which caused more voters to have a strong negative perception of the President, and they've now tried framing the election around entitlements, but discovered that Romney and Ryan turned the issue into a discussion about the lack leadership by the Obama Administration on fixing the entitlement mess.  I wonder what the Obama Campaign will try now?

They certainly can't run on the President's record. That would be an even bigger disaster politically.


  





  

The Voice of Reason: Red States vs. Blue States

America is divided like never before. 

We have the red states whose residents are typically conservative, and then we have the blue states whose residents are generally liberal.  We have citizens who believe that hard work, sacrifice and innovation are what will make them successful, and we have citizens who believe that a government handout is their best path to success.

President Obama, who promised "Hope and Change" while he was campaigning for the office, has done nothing to bring the two Americas together while he's been in office.  Instead, he has divided our already-divided country even further with his words and his policies.  He's stated on numerous occasions that affluent Americans need to pay their "fair share," completely ignoring the fact that nearly half of all Americans pay no income taxes whatsover.  He has turned our nation into an entitlement country, with over 100 million Americans now on welfare, millions more on disability and unemployment.  He's increased our debt by 50% to pay for these programs.  He also said "you didn't build that" to business owners who sacrificed and sweated so that they, their children and grandchildren would have a better life. 

He's divided the country between those who are successful and those who aren't; those who believe that a stifling government is the problem and those who believe that more government is the solution.

Let's say, just for the sake of argument, that President Obama is reelected and the red states decide that they want to secede from the union. Now, we really have two Americas.  What would life be like in those two countries?

In the country with all of the blue states, one would see higher energy costs because the government, not the market, would pick the winners and losers.  One would also see more government programs for those people who are not successful, more government regulations on business and industry, higher taxes for those who succeed, and a widespread attitude that the government is going to take care of everyone from cradle to grave.

In the country with the red states, things would be much different.  Energy costs would be market-driven, which would mean that prices for electricity, gasoline and natural gas would be much lower than in the Blue States Country.  There would be fewer government social programs, and taxes would be significantly lower.  With fewer government regulations, more people would be encouraged to build their own businesses and all people would have an incentive to succeed.  The widespread attitude would be that the government is there to support you if you falter, but the expectation is that you, not the government, are responsible for your own standard of living.

Which country would prosper and which country would falter?  It's pretty clear to see that  businesses in the Blue States Country would want to move to the Red States Country with its lower energy costs and taxes as well as fewer regulations. Those who don't want to work would want to relocate to the Blue States Country, where the welfare programs would be more lucrative, while those with ambition would move to the Red States Country, where the regulations and tax rates would be much less restrictive and regressive.

Within five years, maybe fewer, if this division of our country into red states and blue states were to occur, the Blue States Country would be bankrupt, while the Red States Country would thrive.  Unemployment in the Blue States Country would be 30% or higher as businesses leave for the greener pastures of the Red States Country. As more businesses and ambititious people move across the border, those left in the Blue States Country would be faced with ever-increasing taxes to the point that widespread unemployment and bankruptcies would be the norm, not the exception.  As taxes increase, funds for education and social programs would need to be reduced, negatively impacting the quality of education and the quality of life for all citizens.  This Blue States Country would be in a downward spiral, with businesses leaving, which would result in higher taxes for those who stay, which would create the need for even higher taxes to maintain even a minimum level of services and programs.

The Red States Country would have tax rates that would actually decrease over time, as more business and industry would be encouraged to locate where they have the best chance of succeeding. Lowering tax rates would encourage even more development, helping everyone in the country to prosper. Because of the growing economy, even more tax revenues would be available for education and social programs, helping to improve the quality of life for all citizens. This Red States Country would be in an upward spiral, with lower taxes enticing more economic growth, which would then allow for even lower taxes, which would encourage even more economic growth.


I paint this picture not to suggest that those living in the red states should secede from the union, but to illustrate where this country is heading under our current President.  America is becoming more like the Blue States Country, and less like the Red States Country. After seeing 8%+ unemployment for President Obama's entire term in office and our debt increasing by 50% under his leadership, do you believe our country is on an upward spiral or a downward spiral? Do you think we are headed towards becoming a Red States Country or a Blue States Country?


I don't want to be overly dramatic, but with the debt spiraling farther out of control by the minute, our country on the brink of socialism, and millions added to the rolls of welfare, unemployment and disability under the leadership of our current President, we face a nation-defining decision in November.

This upcoming election may provide America with its last chance at returning to the Democratic, Capitalistic values that made us the greatest country in the world for over 200 years.




         


 

The Voice of Reason: How Low Will Obama Go?

We've all seen the clever television ads in which someone who doesn't have DirecTV ends up in a  ridiculous situation.

In one ad, a man who doesn't have DirecTV becomes depressed.  Then he sees a self-help guru.  Next he becomes so confident after seeing the expert that he heads to Vegas.  Then he gambles and loses everything.  Because he loses everything, he sells his hair.  The message at the end is, "Don't sell your hair.  Get DirecTV."

The new Barack Obama Super PAC "cancer" television ad is THAT ridiculous in connecting one event to another in order try to blame presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney for a woman's death from cancer.  The problem is that this ad is deplorable and completely misleading.   This ad is probably the most despicable political ad in American political history, as it attempts to take advantage of one woman's cancer death for one man's political advantage.  Pathetic.

The messages (direct and implied) in the ObamaSuper PAC ad are something like this:

1. Romney and Bain Capital buy GST Steel.
2. GST Steel goes bankrupt.
3. Employee Joe Soptic loses his health care insurance through GST Steel.
4. Soptic's wife gets sick and dies 22 days later.
5. Romney doesn't care and is to blame for the woman's death.
6. Don't vote for Romney.

To paint Romney with the worst brush possible, the ad does not provide an accurate representation of the timeline of events.  To make things even worse, the ad leaves out important facts that together with the timeline tell an entirely different story.  In a nutshell, here's what really happened:

1. Romney and Bain Capital buy troubled GST Steel and save it from bankruptcy.
2. Romney leaves Bain Capital to run the Olympics.
3. Because of the dumping of foreign steel and high union costs, GST Steel goes bankrupt two years after Romney leaves Bain Capital.
4. Joe Soptic loses his health insurance when he loses his job.
5. Soptic's wife continues to have health insurance through her job a year or two after GST Steel goes bankrupt.
6. She quits her job because of an accident and loses her health insurance.
7. Soptic gets another job but decides not to put his wife on his health insurance because of costs.
8. Seven years after Romney left Bain Capital and five years after GST's bankruptcy, Soptic's wife is diagnosed with cancer and dies 22 days after she is diagnosed.

That's a much different story, isn't it?  It's interesting how the timeline and important details such as the fact that Soptic's wife had her own health insurance after GST Steel went through bankruptcy, that Romney had left Bain Capital seven years before Soptic's wife died, and that Soptic didn't put his wife on his  health insurance aren't mentioned in the ad, isn't it? 

This ad clearly is "gutter" politics, the type of advertising that doesn't simply stretch the truth, it completely avoids the truth, as it tries to take advantage of one woman's death to try to smearthe opposition candidate. The people supporting President Obama's reelection who are behind this ad apparently have no ethics or morals and wouldn't know the truth if it hits them straight between the eyes.  The person leading this Super PAC just happens to be the former Deputy Press Secretary for President Obama.  There are additional close connections between the White House and representatives of this Super Pac, so the President and his staff clearly can't distance themselves from this horrific attack ad.

When Americans learn the truth behind this ad, I have a strong feeling that instead of the ad damaging Romney's reputation, which was the original purpose of the ad, the advertisement will create an unbearable stench of distrust, suspicion and resentment around the entire Obama Campaign.  And it should.

When that happens, this ad will become very, very effective.  For Mitt Romney. 

But if the Obama Campaign is releasing this type of ad three weeks before Labor Day, one has to wonder: How low will President Obama stoop to try to be reelected?

The Voice of Reason: So Do You REALLY Want to Vote for Obama?

I was thinking today about all of the reasons why I won't vote to reelect Barack Obama in November. And then I looked at the polls and saw that he has a slight lead in the average of all polls on realclearpolitics.com

How can this be? Are there people out there who will blindly vote for him because he's a Democrat or because he's black? Are there that many voters in America who aren't paying attention to what has happened to our country in three and one-half short years?

After looking at his record, no one should vote to reelect President Obama. No one.

Today's jobs report showed an up uptick in unemployment to 8.3%. Let's put this number in perspective. In EVERY ONE of the 42 months that Obama has been in office, unemployment has been above 8%, the longest record of 8%+ unemployment in the history of our country. In contrast, in 96 months with George W. Bush as President, we did not have a single month of unemployment at 8% or above. Not one. Why would any person hoping to find a job vote for President Obama in 2012?

The "real" unemployment number is over 15%, when you count those who have given up work and those who are stuck working part-time jobs although they want to work full-time. For those 18-29 years old and African-Americans, the numbers are even worse. Why would any young person or African-American vote for someone whose economic policies have made winning at roulette a much more likely proposition than actually finding a job?

Let's look at a few more good reasons to not reelect President Obama.

In three and a half years, he has increased our national debt by 50%. If President Bush spent money like the proverbial drunken sailor, which he did, President Obama has spent our tax dollars like a drunken sailor on crack. Why would any taxpayer vote to reelect President Obama?

For a President who promised transparency when he was elected, he has been one of our least transparent Presidents. He passed the healthcare law without giving Congress time to actually read it. His administration is full of lobbyists. His Attorney General, Eric Holder, has claimed "Executive Privilege" rather than releasing documents to a House investigation. We learned this week that members of his administration have been meeting lobbyists away from the White House so that their visits would not show up on the official White House log. We also learned this week that members of his staff have been using private e mail addresses to conduct official business. Transparency? Yeah right. Why would anyone who expects transparency in government vote to give Barack Obama a second term?

What major promise has he actually kept? He promised to close Gitmo. It didn't happen. He promised to cut our debt in half by the end of his first term. It's gotten worse. The Obama Administration also predicted that our unemployment rate would be about 6% now if only taxpayers wrote a check for his $800 billion stimulus to pay for shovel ready jobs that we later learned from the President himself "weren't quite shovel ready." And yet, our unemployment rate is 8.3% if you don't count all of the people who have given up looking for work or are working part-time at McDonalds after their unemployment ran out -- instead of working full-time at IBM or Microsoft. Why would anyone who believed Barack Obama when he was running in 2008 vote for him again in 2012?

So, what else hasn't he been doing?

Well, at at time that millions of Americans desperately need jobs, his Jobs and Competitiveness Council hasn't met in over six months, and his Cabinet didn't meet between the end of January and the end of July. Imagine the CEO of any major organization not having a staff meeting in nearly six months. This clearly shows a lack of leadership. Why would anyone expecting leadership from a President vote for someone who has displayed little or none?

Now, let's look at a few of the more underhanded things he's done.

I bet you hadn't heard that his campaign has now filed a lawsuit attempting to limit the number of service members who will be able to vote.  Presently, Ohio allows the general public to cast a ballot in-person up until the Friday before the election, but members of the military are given an additional three days to vote. The Obama Campaign has filed a suit to eliminate this extra time given to those service men and women who just might happen to be fighting on the front lines and need the extra time to vote. Why would any active member of the military vote for a President who doesn't want to make it easy for him or her to vote, even when they're valiantly serving our country?

Or how about when his chief campaign advisor, David Axelrod, suggested that presumptive Republican nominee had committed a felony? Instead of backing away from this outrageous statement, the President insinuated that Romney should be investigated. Although some of his staunchest supporters were interviewed in the news media saying that these allegations were ridiculous, the President continued to fan the flames with insinuations. Why would anyone who demands the truth from his or her leader vote for Barack Obama again?

Another recent revelation is that the Obama Administration is telling our border control agents to let any illegal immigrant go free who says that he or she has graduated from high school or has a GED. No proof or verification is required, and even those who have attacked and injured our border control agents are being let go. The latest is that a border control agent was suspended for arresting an illegal immigrant who had a number of traffic tickets. He was told to let the person go free, but the agent refused. Funny him, he actually thought it was his job to protect our borders. You can't make this stuff up. Why would anyone who expects our borders to be secure vote for a President who has essentially opened our borders to anyone and everyone willing to say that he or she has a high school diploma?

Of course, part of this equation was the Executive Order signed by the President that essentially directed border control agents to ignore immigration law passed by Congress and signed by a previous President as long as the illegal aliens met certain conditions. This wasn't the first time the President has trampled on our Constitution. An order from his administration to force religious organizations to provide free birth control as part of their healthcare plans is yet another example of how President Obama has looked at our Constitution as a "suggestion" for how this country should be run. Why would anyone who believes in the Constitution written by our Founding Fathers vote to give President Obama another chance?

And then you have all of his statements that clearly show he is out of touch. He said that the "private sector is doing fine." He said that his economic plan has worked. The President has also said that he sometimes forgets how bad the economy is. Maybe he doesn't realize what's going on in the lives of ordinary Americans because he hasn't met with his Cabinet or his Jobs Council in six months? Of course his Press Secretary, Jay Carney, gave a perfectly reasonable explanation for the President's lack of attention on jobs, saying that the President "has a lot on his plate." Why would anyone vote for a President who has more important things to do than strive to help millions of Americans get back to work?

He's found enough space on his plate to play over 100 rounds of golf and attend more fundraisers than any of his predecessors. But who are we to judge a President whose administration has experienced 42 straight months of unemployment over 8%? But then again, why would anyone who expects our President to actually work for the American people vote for Barack Obama in 2012?

On top of all of this, you have an EPA that is clearly out of control and a General Services Administration that seems to be doing more partying than working. The EPA has been slapped down by courts several times in the past few months for overstepping its bounds. Policy is now based on whim, not science, and even an EPA official said that he was attempting to "crucify" certain industries. As for the GSA, more was recently revealed about this bloated agency that spends taxpayer dollars on lavish conferences and huge bonuses for employees at a time the country is going broke and millions are out of work. Why would anyone who expects "government by the people and for the people" vote to reelect Barack Obama in 2012?

And then you have the President's statement to business owners that "you didn't build that." He clearly doesn't understand the sacrifices required in terms of time, money and sweat to build a successful business in America. Why would any business owner vote to reelect our current President after he belittled their hard work, courage and intelligence?

Speaking of business, what about our domestic energy industry?  President Obama and his EPA are trying their best to kill the entire coal industry, from mines to the coal-fired power stations.  As a candidate, he boasted that his policies would cause electric rates to "necessarily skyrocket."  This is one promise he's kept. He's wasted billions on alternative energy companies like Solyndra, but has done little to encourage drilling in our domestic oil and natural gas reserves.  Even when he had the opportunity to create tens of thousands of jobs and bring millions of barrels of Canadian oil to our refineries through the Keystone Pipeline, he balked.  As a result of his energy policy, or lack thereof, Americans are now paying close to $4 per gallon of gasoline at the pump, electric rates are increasing dramatically, dozens of power stations are being retired prematurely and hundreds of miners and employees at coal-fired power stations are losing their jobs.  Why would anyone who uses electricity, natural gas or gasoline, or anyone who works in the energy industry for that matter, vote to allow President Obama to expand upon his job-killing, price-hiking policies in a second term?

Lastly, in three and a half years in office, our President has done nothing to address the skyrocketing costs of our entitlement programs, putting them in jeopardy for future generations of Americans. He's made no proposals to save Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare. Our President has focused his attention on playing golf and raising money for his reelection, instead of leading our country and making tough decisions. Why would any senior citizen, or anyone who expects to receive Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare for that matter, vote for a President who has "kicked the can down the road" instead of trying to save these programs for future generations?

Once you put all of this information together in one blog, it's frightening to see what's gone on in this country the past three and one-half years. It's pretty clear: No one in his or her right mind should vote to reelect Barack Obama. No one.